HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-06 TranscriptionPage I
Council Present:
Council Absent:
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Cole, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton
Botchway
Frain, Monroe, Dulek, Fruehling, Andrew, Greer, Knoche, Havel, Seydell-
Johnson, Budding, Campbell, L. Ford, Bockenstedt, Hightshoe
Nelson, Stewart (UISG)
Discuss update to the annexation policy — affordable housing [IP3 of 3/1 Info Packet]:
Throgmorton/ .....City Council work session for Tuesday, March the 6`s, 2018. The first topic is
to discuss an update to the annexation policy, pertaining to affordable housing. So,
Geoff!
Frain/ Yes, thank you, Mayor, um, happy to be here tonight to, uh, hopefully check off, uh, begin
the process of checking off another box on the affordable housing action plan. Um, this,
uh, discussion pertains to the annexation policy that was mentioned in that plan. Um, IP3
of your March 1', uh, packet has the memo from staff, as well as the current annexation
policy, which is incorporated into our Comprehensive Plan. We also included a map of
annexations since 2005 in that packet. You'll note with that map that, uh, our
annexations have been relatively small, I would say, uh, especially considering the
growth that the City's experienced, uh, over that time. Uh, that, uh, that tells ya a .... a lot
about, um, I think the .... the impetus for the growth that we've had. We've had a lot of
in -fill development. We haven't relied, uh, as much on annexations for growth. As
noted in the memo, uh, seven of those annexations have been for 10 residential units or
more. And with annexations, it's important to remind you that the City really holds all
the cards. Okay? Um, if it's in our best interest, we will annex the property. If it's not,
we don't have to annex the property. Uh, nobody can force their way onto, uh, to us, uh,
so that's important to keep in mind. Uh, as you'll see in the policy in the Comp Plan, uh,
we look at three criteria. One is it in our growth area, and we're lookin' then at can we
service it by utilities without, uh, overburdening ourselves. Uh, does it fulfill a need
within the City by bringing this in, uh, and does it, uh, is control of how that property
develops in the best interest of the City. So our annexation policy is already pretty broad.
It recognizes that these situations are unique and the City needs to ... to look at, uh, the
impact of bringing that, uh, parcel into, uh, the community before making a decision.
With annexations we already negotiate a number of topics. When you annex a large
subdivision, we look at things like our need for parkland. We even think of things, do...
do we need an elementary school site? Uh, down to finer details where we might need
a ... a location for a emergency warning sirens. So we already go through a process when
we're annexing to .... to think about all the public facilities and amenities that may be
needed with that, uh, annexation. Now affordable housing has not been one of those
criteria, uh, until now, until we've started that discussion, uh, but clearly we can, uh, have
a lens of affordable housing when we're looking at residential, uh, annexations. As we
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 2
looked around at other cities, uh, we did not find much in terms of affordable housing
bein' specifically referenced in annexation policies. Those communities that, um, are
requiring it, uh, as part of an annexation tend to do so through existing inclusionary
zoning, uh.... uh, ordinances that they have. So they have a city-wide inclusionary
zoning. It automatically applies when you annex a property. We don't have city-wide,
uh, inclusionary zoning, so we'd have to look at the policy to, uh.....insert some language
on that. So as we talked about it, uh, at the staff level, we really had four goals in mind.
Um, one would be flexibility. Uh, each annexation is different, um, and we need to have
flexibility in terms of what .... what type of affordable housing do we want. Uh, is it a
single-family .... does the Comp Plan call for single-family development? Is it multi-
family development? Is it bein' annexed into a part of the city that already has a
significant amount of affordable housing, or is it being annexed into a part of the
community that has a very upper-income, uh, demographic? All those factors may, um...
lead us to different conclusions on what type of affordable housing we want. Not only in
terms of the structure. Is it apartments? Is it single-family? But also the level of
affordability, uh, that may be best for whatever area is bein' annexed. Consistency with
other programs, whether it's the Riverfront Crossings, whether it's housing rehab
programs, our TIF program, as we start to have all these layers that can trigger affordable
housing, it's really important that there's consistency there. So, we talk about 80%
median income versus 60% or 30%. I think we'd look to use some of those same
standards that are already in place throughout, uh, our .... our City regulations. A growing
concern that we have, irrespective of the annexation policy, is the monitoring
requirements that are coming with the, um, affordable housing, uh, regulations that we
have, whether it's inclusionary zoning or TIF, uh, staff is quickly learning that, uh, the...
working with the developers to educate them on the process, verifying income, and as we
look ahead, continuing to verify income for whatever that affordable housing period is,
it's a significant undertaking by staff. So we would like to, as we consider future
annexations, to look for solutions that, uh, do not require or have minimal staff checks
that are needed to, um, verify that affordability. And then, uh, the last one would be, you
know, any time we are holding the cards, we'd like to see long-term affordability. You
know, when we have the affor.... the Riverfront Crossings, um .... uh, inclusionary zoning,
it's 10 years. Um, I think with the affordable housing.... with the annexation policy, we
can strive for a longer term of affordability, and we should. So that's our...our fourth
objective. Some of the solutions that.....that may come to mind, I mentioned this earli...
earlier, in some areas we may prefer a fee in lieu of. Um, in other areas we may prefer a
larger swath of land be dedicated for a multi -family LIHTC project, low income housing
tax credit project. In other annexations it might be individual lots in a single-family
subdivision that then we could develop as a city, or partner with a .... a social service
agency or a developer to provide that, um, that affordability. So, all those things are
really hard to anticipate, because we .... each annexation's different, therefore it's hard to
really write a annexation policy that can encompass all those.... all those variables. In the
memo we have some proposed language. It's on page 3 of the .... of the memo. And, um,
I think I'll just read that for the benefit of. ... of those, uh, viewing as well. Ultimately our
recommendation would be for you to, uh, accept this language, uh, and because it is a
Comprehensive Plan amendment that would then go to Planning and Zoning Commission
who would start the more detailed review process before it came back to you for final
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 3
adoption. So the language we are looking at, uh, is as follows: If the annexation is for
residential development that will result in the creation of 10 or more new housing units,
the development will support the City's goal of creating and maintaining the supply of
affordable housing. Such support shall be based on the goal of providing affordable units
equal to 10% of the total units in the annexed area. Income targets shall be consistent
with the City's existing program requirements. How the development provides such
support will vary depending on the particular circumstances of the annexation, and may
include, but is not limited to, transfer of lots/units to the City, or an affordable housing
provider, fee in lieu paid to the City's affordable housing fund, and/or participation in a
state or federal housing program. In agreement committing the owner developer to the
affordable housing obligation shall be required prior to annexation and shall be further
memorialized if necessary in a conditional zoning agreement. A couple of key .... key
pieces for you to focus on there. Uh, we have, uh, said in this policy, proposed policy,
this would only .... impact annexations of 10 or more units. Again, since 2005, uh, the
City has had seven annexations of 10 or more units. We also, uh, have, uh, established
the goal of providing affordable units equal to 10% of the total units in the anticipated
units in the area that's bein' annexed. Um, and then again you heard a .... a very flexible
approach into how that is, uh, provided. Uh, ultimately, um, that decision would be
yours. The annexation must be approved by the City Council. So, um, if whatever staff
were to negotiate while we're working with the land owner or the developer on the
annexation, if that did not meet your expectations you would have the ability to modify
that, uh, assuming the developer also agrees, prior to that annexation bein' finalized.
With that I'll turn it over to you for discussion and be happy to answer questions.
Throgmorton/ Okay, well, uh.... does anybody have any points they wanna make? I know I have
a few but .... or questions, not points. So go ahead.
Cole/ Geoff, I was wonderin' whether you could elaborate a little bit more on the fee in lieu of.
Um, I think for the Riverfront Crossings, it's my understanding that if they do the fee in
lieu of, those funds would have to then be reinvested in the area itself, cause that was my
only concern of the fee in lieu of, and I was just wonderin' whether that would also apply
here.
Fruin/ Um, I don't think it would have to apply here. You are correct for the inclusionary zoning
requirement. If there's a fee in lieu of, those funds have to be reinvested in that district,
but for example, the TIF policy, um, if there's a .... if.....if we accept a fee in lieu of, on...
on the extra, um, or the 15% out of the TIF policy, we'd have the flexibility to move
those around anywhere in the City. So with this, I don't think you would be bound to do
that. Um, I also would say that what we are not saying with this is that, um, this would
be a developer choice, um, if the .... City really felt that, uh, on-site affordable units was
important, then we would stick to our guns on that and work with the developer to
provide something on-site. Um, in the inclus.... that's contrary to the inclusionary zoning
ordinance where the developer can elect to pay that fee in lieu of.
Throgmorton/ I'd like to elaborate on Rockne's question and your response, Geoff. One of the
purposes of our affordable housing action plan is to help the School District achieve
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 4
better balance within it....within its neighborhood schools. So if we .... if we rely too
heavily on fee in lieu of, we might get ourselves in a situation where people are
voluntarily annexing, they're doing the fee in lieu of, they're putting money into a pot,
but we don't end up with better balance. So that's a concern I have and .... your response
helps me think about that concern. Yeah.
Fruin/ Yeah. I think it works ... it would work both ways. So if we were annexing property in an
area that, um, had high FRI, rates at the elementary schools, that's when we might say we
would prefer a fee in lieu of and then reinvest those dollars somewhere where there's
lower FRI, rates, for example. So .... that's the.....that's the type of thought process we
wanna go through (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Yeah, so this is an important topic. Uh, do any of you have any other views you
wanna share about it?
Salih/ I .... I think, you know, for me the fee in lieu should not be an option at all here. Because
we would like to have people who really live on that area, uh, for the affordable housing
that, you know, uh....I been just hearing everyone will pay the fee, like when we give
them this option they just decide, you know, choose to have the .... paying the fee in lieu
and that's it. You know, which is ... this way (unable to understand) take the fee in lieu
and we don't know when and where we're gonna build those, uh, you know, apartments
or houses for affordable housing, and also I think 10% is not enough. I think we should
make it like 20%. And the affordability also to be like (unable to understand) not like
(unable to understand) shouldn't be like, you know, we .... we should not use the same
thing, like 15% and 10% that we (unable to understand) I think we shouldn't use that for
the annexta .... annexation. We should just create new policy for that, which is I propose
to have like (unable to understand) long-term affordability, permanent affordability, 20%
of, uh, affordable housing unit there, and also for the 60% area median income. I think
we need to reduce that number and think about the people who have like really low
income people, 30%. That my recommendation for this.
Taylor/ Kind of along with Mazahir, I've always been a little leery or skeptical of the fee in lieu
of. I always thought that it was kind of an easy out for the developers and that they're not
taking the affordable housing aspect of it as serious as we'd like `em to, so I've always
been a little leery of offering them that fee in lieu of.
Mims/ As I listen to Geoff talk through this, the way I took his comments, were that if as a city
we feel that that's an area that we want and need more affordable housing, then .... then
we will require that as part of the annexation. But I think .... I feel like what you're
missing is the fact that we do have areas of this community who haven't, that have an
overabundance of affordable housing. When you talk about not wanting to have people
segregated by socioeconomics, it doesn't make sense to have a potential annexation, let's
say of an area where you already have a lot of low income housing and low
socioeconomic individuals living, and somebody wants to annex 120 acres, all right, and
now all of a sudden you're gonna add a whole bunch more low income housing and
overload schools in that area even more than they already are. To me what this language
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 5
does is, number one, it kee.... it keeps all the power with the City. Because as Geoff said,
we don't have to annex if we don't want to. Okay? That .... that is our decision. That is
the Council's decision. So we don't have to annex. So we can get out of those
developers whatever it is we feel that we want and need for that particular annexation, or
we don't agree to annex it. But the idea that we should immediately have affordable
housing in every single annexation, I think.....ignores the aspect that every annexation is
very different. And so I really like the flexibility that's in here, um, because we can look
at each area differently, depending upon what schools are .... is it close to? What are the
FRL numbers at those schools? You know .... what are the .... what are the developers
thinking about in terms of single-family homes or doing more missing middle or multi-
family. So you have all that flexibility that we can bring to the table and get the best deal
that we want, as long as we're meeting whatever our priorities are in terms of affordable
housing or any other aspects. So I like the flexibility of the language with the fact that
the City maintains control.
Cole/ Geoff, along Susan's point, how does this intersect with our scattered site housing policy,
um, cause I .... I, my sense is that would address that, that if. ... if it was in close proximity
to an existing area, with an abundance, that we, you know .... I'm just wondering if we
can somehow gets those policies to intersect and .... and complement one another.
How ... how would .... how would that work?
Fruin/ Well we would look at the .... at the affordable housing location model, uh, when we are
determining what type of affordable housing we felt was, or what type of affordable
housing accommodations were ... were most important in that particular area. So as Susan
mentioned, if we're in an area that is, um.....uh, restricted by the affordable housing
location model, we may be more apt to look towards a, um, a fee in lieu of, versus an area
that doesn't. Now the affordable housing location model really only gets to, um, rental
units that the City is subsidizing. I'm not sure that, uh, we would .... we would restrict
ourselves based on that model because we're .... we're not really subsidizing these units.
We're just requiring `em of the developer. So we're not bound to the model, and correct
me if you think I'm wrong, Sue, but I don't think we're bound to the model. It's more of
a, um, a .... a.....a resource that we would look to to help guide our recommendation and
your decision.
Thomas/ Geoff, maybe you could, um, give a little bit of background on the 10% .... component
of this.
Fruin/ Yeah, uh..... 10% obviously comes from, uh, the .... is what the .... the standard is that we
landed on for the Riverfront Crossings area. 10% is a widely used, uh, figure when it
comes to inclusionary zoning, as you look at ordinances across the country I would .... I
would .... I don't have evidence to back this up, but I would .... I would guess, um, that
10% is the most commonly used, uh, figure when it comes to inclusionary zoning
ordinances across the country. Uh, certainly there's nothing to say that you couldn't do
15, 20 or .... or any, 5, or any other number, uh, but 10 is a .... a more com.... probably the
most common used number. Certainly as that number goes up, just the financial
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 6
challenges of whatever development bein' proposed becomes more difficult, and it's hard
to say what that means when we don't have a specific example to look at.
Thomas/ Yeah, cause I .... you know, one .... Mazahir, one of the, um, reasons.....with Riverfront
Crossings, you know, we were .... we.....we adopted the inclusionary zoning (clears
throat) was that it went along with an upzoning. So there was already.... that created a
significant incentive to develop Riverfront Crossings because you had the higher density
upzoning that was generated. The way I'm seeing this, we're not talking about an
upzoning. You know, it's .... it would, it might .... I guess it might be, I don't know, but
um, Geoff, maybe you could speak to that, but I'm not assuming we'd be seeing higher
densities with these annexations.
Fruin/ When you're annexing, the property's not zoned, because it's not in the City yet. So
you're really looking to the Comp Plan to .... to guide whatever that initial zoning would
be, um ..... any upzoning would .... would probably be a Comprehensive Plan .... so if it's
calling for a single-family subdivision, if the Comp Plan calls for a single-family
subdivision, and you wanted to upzone to multi -family, you're probably going to find
yourself more often than not amending the Comprehensive Plan before you can rezone.
And I wouldn't .... I would.....I wouldn't feel comfortable putting any type of provision
like that in a policy, cause you may not want to promise .... you know, an upzone from
whatever the Comp Plan calls for.
Thomas/ So .... so the concern always with .... with, um, any kind of percentage is .... will
developers just walk away, um, you know it's.... developers (several talking) are
interested in the profit. You know, they .... they build to make money, and it costs money
to provide a percentage of affordable housing. Now if we had a regional policy, you
know, where Coralville and North Liberty and Iowa City were all on the same page, then,
you know, I think it would ... it would be, um ... more likely that we would see developers
going along. But as long as they have other markets .... to build.....
Salih/ That's for the, you're talking about like high-rise building (both talking)
Thomas/ No, no, I'm talking about, um, any (both talking)
Salih/ No I mean like you're talkin' about (unable to understand) you just, somebody just said
we.....it's up to us to annex in an area or not, to make the annexation or reject it, right?
And if ...we ask them to do 15%, say for affordable housing, and they said no, it's up to
us, you know, even it is ... it's optional for us to .... to do it, to you know, accept the
annexation or not. This is not like.... something that people can walk away from it or
something like that, you know, that could be true when somebody is building a building
here.
Throgmorton/ But that's only .... this, what we're talking about is a situation where a developer
asks the City to annex the developer's property. So .... yes, we have the right to say no.
Salih/ Yes! Uh huh.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 7
Throgmorton/ But if we raise that percentage too high, they will not .... it's unlikely that they will
ask to be voluntarily annexed. It's more likely that they'll just sit on the property. I
mean that's the concern, right?
Mims/ And often times, Jim, they're not sitting on the property. They haven't even bought the
property.
Throgmorton/ Yeah.
Mims/ Oftentimes they have .... they have purchase agreements and they only purchase if they
can get it annexed. So .... I mean I agree with both what John and Jim are saying is I think
if we go too high with that percentage, people are just gonna be looking at land around
Coralville and North Liberty to annex and develop, and we won't see that growth and that
opportunity for additional affordable housing via annexation.
Cole/ (both talking) Does this give us the discretion, Geoff, if we set this as a minimum of 10%,
could the staff in their discretion as part of negotiations go higher with the proposed
developer or .... um. .....
Fruin/ We could, but I think it's really important that you set a (both talking) pretty clear
standard for .... for the, um, a .... a target for those developers. So, I .... I would be reluctant
to .... to tell ya that we would aim higher than what the .... what the policy says. That's
why we... I think there's a couple of key points we need to be clear on. It's the
percentage, the 10% that you're discussing now and the, kind of the minimum size. We
said 10 units or more. Those are really clear distinctions that developers and property
owners need to know.
Cole/ Okay. I .... I guess for my purposes .... I think in terms of the Riverfront Crossings
standards, I would really like to see us plug into those standards, both as oppos... in terms
of affordability, as well as percentage. Um, the process to get to those standards, I'm
gonna give a shout -out to some people here, it was Scott McDonough, Glenn Siders,
Mary Ann Dennis. I think Sally Scott was on that, and others, um, an incredibly
thoughtful group of citizens who came together, and I think there was a lot of healthy
internal debate in terms of where the affordability was gonna be, in terms of where the
percentage of affordable housing was gonna be, and they had that debate internally and
arrived at this number, and the thing about that group is that it was this broad cross-
section (mumbled) to arrive at that number they felt that we could get the affordable
housing and get the projects done. So, for my purposes, I would like to hook into that
standard, both in terms of the income affordability, as well as, um, the percentage of
affordability.
Salih/ I think that 10%....I just would like to see a long-term affordability. Even if we ... we said,
okay, 10%, it'd have to be permanent affordable.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 8
Throgmorton/ On that point, Geoff, that's one of the .... that's the fourth of the four principles that
you identified, uh, define some way to have, I don't know, durability in terms of the
affordability. How ... what are you thinkin' about that, how to achieve that?
Frain/ Well, and that's ... that gets back to the ... the monitoring issue and we wanted to avoid that
the best that we could, and so we thought, you know, our thought is right now that we
would rely on, um, a .... a couple of different avenues. One, if it's .... if it's LIHTC, we
know that there's a .... a 30 -year period that's associated with the LIHTC, and oftentimes,
um, you might see the .... the LIHTC provider go beyond those 30 years. Um .... uh, if we
were to work with, uh, a .... a, um, affordable housing provider, like the Housing
Fellowship.....
Salih/ Uh huh.
Frain/ .....we don't have assurance that they're gonna maintain them affordabil .... affordable
forever, but we know it's their mission to provide affordable housing and we should feel
pretty safe and secure that if they end up selling the unit market rate, 30, 40 years down
the road, hopefully their organizations take those proceeds and .... and invest them
elsewhere in the community. If the City developed them, uh, were to develop them, uh,
as a .... as a public housing option, um, that .... we would be in control then and future
Councils would .... would have the ability to sell, um, but um, it's .... I would say, it would
be unlikely that they would move away from the affordable housing requirements. So
those are the types of solutions that we're gonna come to the table thinking of. What we
want to avoid is the situation that we have in Riverfront Crossings now, which works fine
for that fine geographic area, but where we rely on the developer or the owner, who's not
in the business of providing affordable housing to do income verification in perpetuity,
that's when it starts to overburden staff, particularly if you have a large annexation and
we're now all of a sudden have to monitor 40 or 50 more units for.....ever, that's
a .... that's a lot, um, to .... to put back on staff for .... for verification purposes. So we
would look for those partnerships or programs that have long-term
afforda .... affordability built in, or that we'd at least feel pretty secure on.
Salih/ (unable to understand) concern is the monitoring. Just think about it, you know, to ... to
make it affordable like forever or for long time, and for us to look for a number of
organizations to do that. It deserve the, you know, the work and looking for someone,
like (unable to understand) if this will .... to look after those (unable to understand)
monitoring the, this affordable housing. If it's for sale, done deal. Sell it for affordable
and people will take care of it. But if (unable to understand) some of them will be
renting, some of them will be like for sale. That's why, you know, this is really (unable
to understand) if this something for rent can continue monitoring those houses, but .... you
know, long term affordability, it will be really great to look into it.
Cole/ Yeah, cause Riverfront Crossings right now is only 10, so I do go back on that. I th...
that's definitely too low.
Salih/ Uh huh.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 9
Cole/ Um..but other than that I think .... you just....(mumbled) we can just have staff reach out to
some of our affordable housing partners and come back with a number or are we gonna
decide the number tonight in terms of the long-term piece of it? Geoff or Jim?
Throgmorton/ What .... whatdaya mean, the .... (both talking)
Cole/ We're having a discussion right now in terms of affordability — 10, 20, 30, or permanent.
Are we deciding that tonight, or is that something where we can direct staff to go and
look what our affordable housing partners (both talking)
Throgmorton/ ...deciding whether to .... whether to direct staff to proceed with....
Salih/ This one or (both talking)
Throgmorton/ ....that one .... the statement that Geoff read or whether we want to modify that
statement in some form, but it's not a formal decision tonight. It's just.... directing staff
to (several talking) produce a draft ordinance.
Fruin/ (both talking) ...start the process with Planning and Zoning, but our.... the..... the statement
that I read does not include a .... a set time period. It does not say 10 years, 20 years, 30
years, or in perpetuity, um, clear..... clearly that's a goal, and when we talk about, um, the
....you know it says how the development provides such support will vary depending on
the particular circumstances of the annexation, and may include, but is not limited to,
transfer of lots to the City. So we're in control. We can control affordability if we own
it. An affordable housing provider, that would be like Habitat or Housing Fellowship,
where their mission is to provide affordable housing, fee in lieu where we control then
how those are invested, um, or participation in a state or federal program, which again
already have like a LIHTC is what we're thinkin' there, already has a long-term
affordability requirement built into it, 30 years. That's why we specifically mentioned
those. We did not mention that the developer would own and ... and maintain, because
we .... we want to avoid that solution, that .... that solution. So we have that goal
embedded, but it's not specifically stated. If you want it specifically stated before it goes
to Planning and Zoning, you need to give us that direction tonight.
Throgmorton/ I .... I.....I'd like to draw our attention to, uh, a really crucially important aspect of
what we're discussing right now, and that is .... we're proposing to do something new. I
mean there is no annexation policy concerning affordable housing. So the very fact that
we're discussing this matters. And .... what we have in front of us may .... may not be
ideal in terms of the number of units, the Ion .... the dura ... the long-term character of, uh,
what comes before us. Maybe it's ..... a little too much flexibility or whatever, I mean
whatever objections I and you can think of Still the point is, we would be putting into
motion a new policy that requires affordable units as part of any residential voluntary
annexation. So .... let's not lose sight of that.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 10
Taylor/ I think that's... that's very true, Jim. I think what it's saying is ... is it's showing our
commitment to the affordable housing obligation that we've talked about over and over
again. So ... yeah, I think the language is good, and it's a good start.
Cole/ I guess my preference would be that we do add more specificity on the long-term
affordability for private developers. I won't want to talk about the number tonight, but
my preference would be that staff does reach out, uh, to some affordable housing partners
and come up with a more specific number, so that'd be at least my preference, unless
after those consultations it's totally imprac.... impractical.
Throgmorton/ I .... I too am concerned about a 10 -year limit, which is the Riverfront Crossings
situation. I think that's too short, but .... but.....yeah, I like the way you put it, reach out,
explore, come back to us with a suggestion. Is that clear enough? I don't know if it is.
No. I see dubious (laughter)
Fruin/ You know I think .... I think everybody's gonna advocate for the longest term affor.... you
know, the longest term of affordability there is. Um, the .... the question is if...if you, for
example, say in perp ... in perpetuity, are....are you gonna be able to pursue a LIHTC
program, because a lot of those LIHTC providers, you know, they're bound by those 30
years and they may extend that to 40 years or 45, but they may not be interested in a ... in a
project that requires, uh, affordability forever. (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Okay, so that's.... that's off (both talking)
Fruin/ ...from a .... a key funding source or a key way to leverage those funds. Um, again I ... we
just thought that.... and.... and maybe what ... what we need to do is revise the policy to
stress that the .... the goal is long-term affordability, um ..... without stating (mumbled) in
perpetuity, but.... clearly if you want us to engage with, um, affordable housing providers
and .... and review this and come back to you in a work session, we will do that, and we're
happy to do that. They may have some.... some good feedback, um .... however you want
to proceed.
Mims/ I guess my thought on it would be .... I don't think we want to stick a number in here.
Again, I think that starts taking away flexibility. I agree with the comments that the 10 -
years that we have in Riverfront Crossings is too short. We .... we just end up potentially
losing affordable housing units after 10 years and we're just kind of restarting. So we
definitely want to shoot for longer term than that, but I think .... I think as long as .... that
that is the commitment of the Council, and the Council is the one that votes on these
annexations, then .... and staff acts at the direction of Council, we're gonna get that result,
for the longer, uh, commitment, and to put something in that, um, would potentially leave
out valuable programs, like LIHTC, I think (both talking) would be a big mistake.
Cole/ I view that as a, I mean, I .... I hate to use the word red herring, but I think that's a little bit
of a red herring, because I don't think anyone is tal... I mean Mazahir has commendably
talked about permanent, and I would love to have permanent, but I haven't seen that
that's something we wanna do. Um, I would (mumbled) that feedback, um, something
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page I I
more than 20, something 30 or less, in such a way that would not compromise eligibility
for those programs. I don't think anyone would support a policy. My concern with
Council having control at this stage, a developer goes through the process with staff, they
come up with a number, and then we say that's not enough, go back to the drawing board.
It creates uncertainty, which I think we're tryin' to avoid. So I .... I would at least like
`em to have that conversation. I don't think it would take that much time, at least I'm
hoping it wouldn't, and they can come back for relatively (mumbled) At least that's
my .... my position on that.
Salih/ I just want to ask you for the history of the annexation in Iowa City. Have all those been
like for rent, like residential for rent or for sale?
Fruin/ Um, it's not somethin' that we ... when it's .... it would be up to the owner, uh, so I couldn't
answer that. When we go through the annexation, we don't specify whether they're
rental or ownership. Sometimes by the nature of the housing that's provided. If it's
multi -family you could, uh, assume it would be rental. If it's single-family you could
assume it would be owner -occupied, but that's not always the case. And those
annexations that you're seeing on that map are also, uh, annexations for non-residential
property too. So there's office annexations. There's I think Terry Trueblood Park is on
there, that we annexed. Those aren't all residential on there, but .... we don't always know
that at the time of annexation. We can get the developer's thoughts going into it, but
developers may change based on the market. If it's a strong rental market, they may rent
more. If it's strong seller's market, uh, on the single-family they may.....they may sell.
Throgmorton/ All right, I want to walk folks through three questions, and let's see if. ... if there's
majority support for specific answers to these three questions, knowing that .... this will
just go into, uh, a proposed ordinance that will be processed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and reviewed by the public and interested parties, etc. So the three
questions have to do with .... uh, shall we, uh, permit the use of fee in lieu of. The second
is, do we want to use .... do we want to require 10% or some larger number, 15 or 20, uh,
in terms of the number of affordable.... or the percentage of units that are affordable, and
the third would be, do we want to put anything specific in there, with regard to the
duration, or time limit, for the affordability matter, and if so what number do we want to
propose, if we want to propose any specific number. Okay? So, fust question, uh, who
supports the idea of. ... of authorizing the staff to use fee in lieu of as one of the
alternatives to ... you know, when discussing a proposed annexation. So, who's in favor of
that? I see three hands up. Did you....
Mims/ I think we need flexibility, folks (laughs)
Cole/ Here's my thing on that. I would support it if there were more specifically defined criteria
to ... to limit discretion as to when it was used, based upon sort of what we had talked
about before, so ... um, I could support it but I would wanna make sure there are specific
criteria, because what I don't want a situation is is where we have this, as we've talked
about earlier, and we end up further aggravating the socioeconomic disparities that we
have (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 12
Throgmorton/ Yeah, good point. So, Geoff, is there some way that language could be revised, I
mean because, you know, just so we're all very clear about this, one of the purposes of
our affordable housing action plan is balance, to help the School District achieve balance
among its neighborhoods. So....
Fruin/ We would .... we would probably just refer to the affordable housing location model. And
if. ... yeah, so if. ... if it's an area that would, uh, otherwise, if the City would otherwise not
subsidize rental housing then, um, then we would allow fee in lieu of.
Cole/ I guess I'm comfortable with that, because that would then allow us to invest in another
part of the community, and if it didn't.... wasn't affected by the model, well then it should
be there, right, because it's not already part of the model, so .... I guess I would be cool
with that.
Mims/ What if you had though some .... an opportunity come before you, or somebody wants to
annex a piece of property, and.....at the same time, it's not necessarily an ideal spot.
Maybe it fits the location model .... but there's an opportunity for a great land banking
situation ...... where that might be, you know, an area that you've always wanted to get
some land, because there's not much affordable housing in that part of the city, and for
some reason, somehow, something comes up that here's an opportunity. You got this
annexation on this hand or they've gotta give us money in lieu .... fee in lieu of, or do the
affordable housing, but you have a more ideal location over here, but you don't have the
money for it. I'm really concerned that you start putting these limitations in and you....
you limit flexibility and .... you don't give the staff or the Council the opportunity to make
the best decisions, based on the circumstances at the time.
Fruin/ Yeah, and maybe I'll ..... as I'm thinkin' about examples where you may want fee in lieu
of in .... other areas. Let's say we had an annexation, uh, for a single development, 100
units, uh, senior housing provider. Um, and so the annexation policy, we would look at
that and say, okay, you need to provide 10% of those units, uh, as affordable and the
provider, you know, typically the senior housing providers are national providers with
their own operational models. They may not have, um, mixed income desires
or .... within their business model. So in that case, you know, you're annexing one
building, that's big. It has .... maybe it's assisted living or .... or somethin' like that, um,
that's another situation where irrespective of where it's located, visa vie the affordable
housing location model, we might consider a fee in lieu of, because we might say ..... the
10 .... the value of 10% of those units could be better invested somewhere else, while you
still have a singular senior housing provider in this area. It's just one more example
of. ... (both talking) process.
Salih/ .....you don't have the, what you say like .... the mixed income?
Fruin/ So, uh, in a .... a provider of, um, senior housing may not, you know, they build .... they
build the same model everywhere they go, in 50 cities throughout the country. They may
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 13
be unwilling to have a, um, an affordable housing component to their .... to their product.
Um.....
Salih/ They don't want to (unable to understand)
Fruin/ Yeah, it's .... it's (both talking)
Salih/ ....the model, yeah.
Fruin/ .....we see that with a lot, you know, the Foster Road, uh, annexation that .... that you have,
A before you. That you had, now that you're into the zoning, um, stage, uh, that's a .... a
senior housing provider that doesn't have an affordable component to it. In that case, we
might take the .... the fee in lieu of, um (both talking)
Salih/ We just don't annex it. We need to have, like somebody if they came to our city, they
have to be welcome to all the people from different income, and if they don't wanna do
it, because that their model, go somewhere else and do it, you know, in our community
we prefer the people who come here who understand the .... our model.
Fruin/ Yeah. That's your decision as a policy maker. I'm just tryin' to give you examples of
where fee in lieu of might be appropriate.
Cole/ I .... I guess I can't support it unless there's more language specifically preventing.... and
I'd leave it to staff's discretion and .... to come up with that language preventing the
concern that we've identified, that all of a sudden we find ourselves not addressing one of
our concerns in terms of balance throughout the community. Um, so at least based upon
the language now I would be a no, uh, for fee in lieu of, unless and until there's more
clear language identifying that concern.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, I .... L....I'd express it differently, Rockne. I .... I think what I personally
would like to see is that.... the.....the.....the staff adopt some language that clearly
indicates we .... we want them to give considerable weight to the concern about helping
the district achieve better balance, when deciding whether or not to use fee in lieu of. So
it still leaves a lot of discretion in the staff s hands, but draws attention to that key
question about balance among the neighborhood schools. Instead of 11 % FRL rates and
78% FRL rates, maybe we can.....modify that at the margin with our policy. (both
talking)
Fruin/ I think we can come up with language.
Cole/ Yeah.
Thomas/ Yeah, I mean my feeling is is .... this seems to me like a pretty good start, I mean we're
not at the end of this process. We're at the beginning of it. It will be going through
Planning and Zoning.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 14
Throgmorton/ Right.
Thomas/ It will be fully vetted through that process. I think we've identified the key variables.
Uh, so ... I mean I, Jim, I think your ... your three points we should go through, but it's....
personally I think this seems like a fairly good start, and we're having a good
conversation in terms of raising concerns, um, but that's why we have the (laughs)
Planning and Zoning process, is that it will give us .... give us and the community time to
....discuss these variables in more detail, before it comes back to us.
Throgmorton/ All right, so ... given the caveat I just identified, are we .... enough of us comfortable
with fee in lieu of?
Cole/ If the language is there. Yes.
Salih/ I'm not.
Throgmorton/ All right, well I see four, five. All right so....
Taylor/ Like Rockne says.
Throgmorton/ Yeah. All right so (both talking)
Fruin/ ....some language.
Throgmorton/ All right. So the second had to do with basically the percent of units that would
have to be affordable. So you've proposed 10%.
Salih/ And I propose 15%.
Throgmorton/ Yeah.
Mims/ I'm comfortable with 10. I .... I think John made a really good point, that we're not .... we
did the 10 in the Riverfront Crossings, where we were upzoning so we were giving them
greater density. Okay? Um, in this case, you could say that you're giving them
something by allowing them to come into the City, and get City services. In exchange for
being a part of the City and getting City services, they have to provide the 10%. I think it
keeps it kind of in line with what we did there, and I think it also hopefully keeps the
financial aspect, um, reasonable too in terms of making it work for everybody.
Cole/ Well the other thing I like about the 10 is that the developers that now have gone into the
Riverfront Crossings are familiar with the standard and they can communicate to the
future developers, hey, this is a workable standard. And again, for the .... for the reasons I
previously discussed I'd support the 10.
Thomas/ Yeah, I .... I think, again, for the time being I'm supportive of 10. I mean I've just
recently been reading about Portland, which, uh, which is a very hot market in terms of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 15
real estate, and they.... they've enacted a citywide inclusionary zoning.... requirement,
and there are indications that development is slowing down (laughs) so you can end up
hurting your cause, you know, 10, 15% of nothing is nothing (laughs) you know, so the
key is how do we develop, cognizant of the market we're working in. So that we are
generating units and not causing development to choose to go somewhere else. So it ... it's
a balance and I ... I don't know where that balance is but I'm .... for the time being, uh, and
we can, you know, this will go through the .... the P&Z process, um, as Rockne said,
with .... with Riverfront Crossings, which was one of those sort of Portland situations,
where we were creating a .... a huge incentive to develop there. Um, there is a risk that we
will set the percentage too high, and I'm .... I am concerned about that.
Salih/ But if we have like citywide inclusionary zoning, we can just say 10%, you know (unable
to understand) but we don't.
Thomas/ Uh huh.
Salih/ And that's why I'm saying .... and even if we have permanent 10%, I can say yes 10% for
like permanent affordability, which is ... will be great, even less than that it will (unable to
understand) 7% permanent, you know, but this is gonna be for certain time, but you know
looking ahead, suddenly gonna see that.... that area (unable to understand) not affordable
housing there, or like 10 years, everything gone, and we gonna start doing affordable
housing option again and again and this, you know, crisis never gonna end.
Throgmorton/ So that leads us to the third decision I think we have to make. Uh, sorry, I ... I .... I
think I'm gonna support 10% myself so (several talking) Yeah.
Salih/ Yeah, of course.
Throgmorton/ It'll be reviewed, uh, and processed by the vetting process we've already
specified. But that leads us to the third point, which has to do with duration, or the length
of, um, the requirement. I think two years .... 10 years is too short. Uh, I don't like it in
the Riverfront Crossings District. I think we need a longer period. Uh, in parp...
perpetuity is just.... beyond, it's too much, too long. Uh, so .... I ..... I wanna put out there,
uh, just to have a conversation here, 20 years as the .... the period of time that we would
want our .... the units to be affordable. And .... and then it'd be processed. I don't know if
I would actually end up voting for 20 or 15 or what, I don't know, but .... uh, a longer
period. So, what do the rest of y'all think?
Thomas/ I think duration is the key, one of the key variables, um .... and I .... I ..... I like your
suggestion of 20 as a starting point. Um ..... so, yeah, I mean that .... that's the one that
worries me the most is creating affordable housing and then watching it evaporate. So
I .... and I think there are a number of strategies, aside from inclusionary zoning, that we
....we need to be looking at in terms of, you know, that notion of affordable by design,
you know, regulatory, uh, controls which will reduce the cost of developing housing. I
mean that's one of the key issues that we face in affordable housing is ... is if our standards
do not generate it, we have .... we have a disconnect there. So we need to develop
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 16
standards which promote affordable housing by design, uh, as well, urn .... but I do think,
you know, where we .... where we err .... where we are earmarking 20% seems like a good
starting point.
Mims/ Twenty years you mean.
Throgmorton/ Twenty (both talking)
Thomas/ Did I say 10?
Mims/ You said 20 years (several talking) Or you said 20%. (several talking)
Thomas/ (laughing) Oh, I'm sorry, 20 years. Sorry!
Mims/ 10%, 20 years!
Taylor/ I would go along with the 20 years, cause if we're talking long-term affordability, I agree
10 years just really doesn't seem long enough, and 30 is maybe too long, and .... with
LIHTC, etc., um, 20 years I think would be good.
Throgmorton/ But let's see .... but we would not want to require.... always 20 years, right? A
LIHTC project might actually be 30. Yeah.
Mims/ I mean something like, you know, preference is 20 years minimum, I mean, something
that's....I.....I rely on staff to come up with some language that they think might .... and
again, P&Z's gonna go through this, but .... um, I .... I don't wanna see us starting over
every 10 years either. I think that's an issue, but I wanna .... I'm concerned about setting
things in stone that then don't give us ... we get down the road and there's some really
good opportunity and we don't have the flexibility that we'd like to have. I get
concerned with that.
Cole/ And I would imagine with the language, we could construct the language in such a way
that, you know, that we would ensure that it's 20 years and we'd make sure that it doesn't
conflict with eligibility for federal housing programs or something, I mean, unless it
conflicts with those programs. The only thing I would say is, I think we're all sort of
looking for that Goldilocks number, that perfect number. Ten is too low, permanent I
think for me is too much, um, I would like the staff to reach out to our affordable housing
in terms of coming up with... community, in terms of getting that number. Um, so I guess
at least for now, I'm not supportive of 20 years. I don't wanna decide that tonight. Um, I
would prefer that we request staff to reach out to that community (mumbled) get up to
that 30 year number.
Throgmorton/ Maz, do you have .... do you have a view about this?
Salih/ Me? Permanent! (laughter)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 17
Throgmorton/ All right, but I .... I think I heard four people express support for 20, and again, this
is a tentative proposal that's gonna be processed. All right, uh, there.... there's one very
minor change I'd like to recommend in the draft you gave us, that the .... the paragraph,
and it .... (laughs) may turn out to be irrelevant, given our conversation, but .... uh, let's see
now, in the .... what is this, the second sentence that begins such support shall be based
on. I'd like to suggest removing the words `a goal of.' So in other words, uh, what it
reads right now is `such support shall be based on a goal of providing affordable units
equal to 10% of the total units in the annexed area.' Uh, except (both talking)
Mims/ But if it's in fee in lieu of, your calculation of that fee in lieu of may be related to that
10%.
Throgmorton/ Well so .... I was just gonna suggest changing it to `such support,' um .... for the
goal that's described in the first sentence. `Such support shall be based on providing
affordable units equal to 10%, or whatever the percent is, of the total units in the annexed
area,' and then it goes on to provide flexibility. So....
Mims/ But what if you decided, if you do decide to take fee in lieu of, and you're buying land for
land banking, the ... you may not be able to equate that to exactly 10 units, equal to 10
units of.....
Throgmorton/ Well yeah, I .... I was tryin' to be clear that the principle would be, just usin' this
initial language, the principle would be 10% .... of units shall be affordable, but then there
are a variety of ways of doing it. I don't wanna make it sound like 10% is a goal. That's
....that's pretty ambiguous, seems to me.
Salih/ And what about the like affordable housing, affordable to tenant at ... which level, like .... I
see (unable to understand) for the median income for the renter and the .... 80% for
ownership, home ownership. You know, I just would like really to see lower numbers in
that so income can include like people (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Can we come back to that? And try to .... answer the.... the.... the, decide whether
you want to make the little change that I just suggested. Just decide that first. Then we
come back to you, Maz.
Salih/ Uh huh.
Thomas/ Of deleting on a goal? That... those....
Throgmorton/ No. Deleting the words `a goal of.' And you know my concern is that having
those three words in there makes it sound as if the percentage requirement is in itself
merely a goal.
Cole/ It .... it does sound discretionary, Jim. I .... I agree. I would support your change.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 18
Taylor/ You already said in .... in the first sentence that the goal was.... creating and maintaining
the supply of affordable housing. So it's kind of redundant then to say that here's the
other goal, providing. So I .... I would agree with that.
Thomas/ That's fine, take it .... to take it out.
Throgmorton/ Okay so, uh, there's support for doin' that. Maz, you have a suggestion. Could
....could you state it again please?
Salih/ I said I would like to see lowering the number of the .... the tenant who (unable to
understand) like affordable to tenant at or below 60% of the area median income, and uh,
homeowner at below 80%. Just by looking (unable to understand) the Census data of the
like .... how many people we have in this community. We have like over 2,000 family
that paying more than 50% of their income, you know, toward rent and utilities. Just by
going back to the City Census about this we need to lower this number. We need to
maybe make it like 50, 40, and for the homeowner could be like 60.
Throgmorton/ Oh, okay. So instead of saying .... 80% of area median income for .... um, owned
struct.... units, and 60% for rented units, you want both of `em lowered, is that right?
Salih/ Yes. Yeah, because (both talking)
Throgmorton/ ....lowered to what? What percentages?
Salih/ I would love to see like 30, 40 on the renter, and would love to see like really 60, 50 on the
ownership.
Throgmorton/ Okay. So there's a .... a proposal before us. Whatda y'all think?
Mims/ I'm not in favor of it, and it .... we have that flexibility to do that, but my concern is .... you
mentioned earlier, Jim. We're doing something we've never done before, even to start
talking about, um, affordable housing being tied to annexation. My concern is .... two-
fold. You start putting, um, requirements in here that are more expensive for the City,
developers, housing providers than anything we're already doing in the City, um, and the
opportunity that we're going to have for any annexation is .... why would somebody
annex property when they could do something in the City, in Riverfront Crossings, I
mean other places, that is less expensive than what this is going to do. Um, I .... I think
we have to, I mean it says the targ... the income targets will be consistent with the City's
existing.... program requirements, and I think it's reasonable to keep them consistent, you
know. I don't think you want a bunch of different guidelines and different requirements
in different parts of the City. I think we want to keep it consistent. I think we need to
look at opportunities to offer for people with lower incomes, definitely (both talking)
Cole/ ....certainly would.
Mims/ Yeah, LIHTC certainly does.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 19
Taylor/ And those numbers are consistent with other.... across the country, across the state use
those same basic (both talking)
Mims/ LIHTC does, yeah, cause that's federal..... state and federal money.
Taylor/ Right.
Cole/ And I know I'm soundin' like a broken record on our mythical committee here on
Riverfront Crossings, but I really do like the fact that they really looked at this from all
the angles, over a period of time, did the analysis, and came up with this numbers, and
they had this strong internal discussion, with affordable housing ... I'm sure Mary Ann was
pushing for 30, um, but they came to these numbers. The development community is
getting used to `em, and let's keep on that path.
Throgmorton/ John? Pauline?
Thomas/ Yeah, I .... I think, again the.....we're talking about new development with annexation.
Uh, new development is always expensive. So I .... (clears throat) and again, I'm hoping
we can try to develop standards to reduce that cost, but, uh..... the 60 and the 80, I think,
are .... have been kind of vetted with respect to that, you know, that it's difficult with
homeownership .... to go lower than 80% because you may not be able to get a loan.
So....so there are a number of things that come into play with lowering these numbers
that .... I, you know, I think did go through a process with (mumbled) Riverfront
Crossings in ... in establishing those numbers as workable. Um, the 30% is a huge issue.
I .... I agree with you. What .... what, you know, where, you know, you're talking about
people with.... households with very low income. I think that's kind of ...the way I'm
viewing that is a special condition that needs to be looked at with .... with other remedies.
You know, a special remedies, urn ..... because from a market standpoint, that .... I just
don't know how that works. I think it's extremely (laughs) difficult....
Throgmorton/ Yeah.
Thomas/ ....in our market system to make it work.
Taylor/ I agree, cause I think we've .... we've gotten literature about that, as far as that makes it
very difficult for these folks to .... to even get a loan, to get it in the first place, so .... I
agree with John.
Throgmorton/ So, do I hear preference for keeping it at 80 and 60? For...... for this tentative....
so that's what we're gonna do here. Okay.
Salih/ Yeah.
Throgmorton/ Okay. So any other points anybody wants to make with regard to this annexation
policy? Amendment.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 20
Cole/ I just wanna commend staff for I think a very thoughtful, new, groundbreaking policy.
Fruin/ Would you like to see this revised language again before we send it to P&Z, or are you
comfortable with us making changes and gettin' it in front of P&Z?
Throgmorton/ I .... I'd say make changes and send it to P&Z. (several responding)
Cole/ My vote would be to see it. So I'm only one vote so.....
Throgmorton/ Okay, given the time, I want to suggest that we skip the strategic plan discussion
till after .... the formal meeting. All right? So if ...unless there's objection to that. Let's
turn to clarification of agenda items.
Clarification of Agenda Items:
Item 4d(3) Frauenholtz-Miller Park - Resolution accepting the work for the
Frauenholtz-Miller Park Project 2016.
Thomas/ I just .... I just had one and it had to do, uh, was on the Consent Calendar, on the um....
Frauenholtz-Miller....uh.....the numbers didn't quite make sense to me and I'm not
finding.... there was a .... an increase in the .... what the, the cost of the project came in at,
and.....uh, over what was awarded. That didn't seem to match up with the change orders.
Seydell-Johnson/ Sorry, I don't have the change orders in front of me but, um, the cost .... the
additional cost had to do with the sodding that we ended up having to do at that park, um,
as part of the project, and then some of the footings with the shelter, uh, we ran into with
placement on that, so....
Thomas/ Okay.
Fruin /We can take a look at that between now and the formal, if. ... Juli or Jason, you can pull
that, we can get some clarification.
Havel/ Yeah, one thing I would mention with that is those were existing bid items, and so it was
an increase in quantity versus, um, requiring a change order for adding items. So it was
an increase in quantity versus an increase in items.
Thomas/ Uh huh.
Fruin/ Does that .... does that satisfy that?
Thomas/ I think so, yeah.
Fruin/ Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 21
Item 4d(6) Police Officer Grant Over hires - Resolution amending budgeted
positions in the Police Department by temporarily adding two full-time police
officer positions.
Taylor/ I had a question also for Geoff on .... on 4d(6), um, with the police officer grant overhires,
uh, the final sentence said, uh, be increased by temporarily adding two full-time police
officers. So as those grant -funded positions go away, will you just by attrition then sort
of work into that? You won't just automatically .... get rid of two positions.
Fruin/ Correct, no. Yeah, there's no layoffs. So, um, once those grant funds end, you're right.
The next two .... uh, employees to leave the department, whether retirement or .... another
job or whatever they choose to do, we just wouldn't fill those positions.
Taylor/ Is .... is there a possibility that.....we might continue, uh, those specialty kinds of things,
like for the domestic violence, etc.?
Fruin/ Um, yeah, a lot of the .... lot of the, like for instance the domestic violence grant, a lot of
what that provides for is training for our investigators and for, uh, the community. So
some of the, um, victim advocates and social service agencies will also benefit from that
grant, because we'll be able to do joint training with our department. So, it's not all
about a person dedicated to the issue. It's.... it's.... it's a .... it's about
education.... education for the entire department and the community. But certainly
we .... we hope, and .... and (laughs) this should be the case with anything we do along
these lines. If we're getting a grant, uh, whatever skills we learn, whether it's Invest
Health or ..... or this particular grant, should carry on well beyond the term of the grant.
If. ... if not we're not doin' things correct.
Taylor/ Thank you.
Dulek/ Plus there is an officer already dedicated just to domestic violence. I'm not sure if you
realize that but .... Scott Stevens, that's a full-time position already.
Item 4f(5) Andrew Wendel: Inquiring about an Interview
Throgmorton/ Uh huh. Any other agenda items? I'd like to make a quick comment about a
piece of correspondence. Item 4f(1), which is a request for an interview, coming from
Andrew Wendel, and it....it has to do with, uh, alcohol and.....I don't..... where's.....
where's Simon? (laughs) Oh, sorry! Couldn't see ya (laughs) Uh, alcohol and crime
and.... incidences of this and that, and .... and, uh, Simon provided a lot of really detailed
information. I've shared it with Andrew Wendel and he and I are gonna have a
conversation and a short interview for his research project. Just wanted to let y'all know
that. And thanks for doin' that, Simon!
Information Packet Discussion 1IP8 and IP10, February 151:
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 22
Throgmorton/ Okay, I guess we'll move on to the info packet, uh, February 15. Urban wildlife
deer might be a good one. IP #8 in the February 15' packet. So .... Liz, is Liz in the
audience? Uh.... I.....thanks for providing us with a memo and some .... and than all that
background information that Sue provided, right? Who knew? I should know, I mean it
happened right after I left the Council 20 years ago, but nonetheless.... So, is there
anything you want to say to us before we try to figure out how to proceed?
Ford/ I'm just here to answer questions for anyone. I know you have history in your packet that
Sue provided. Um, everything that has happened previously was a little before my time.
Um, but I .... I understand that, um, a task fort ... force was created, um, including experts
and a lot of public input, which is exactly what, um, National Resource Commission is
still looking for today when they look at municipalities that are .... that are requesting deer
management zones or special harvests. They, you know, they want public input and they
want, um, to know that you've really done your research and, um, consulted your wildlife
biologist and things like that, so....
Throgmorton/ Yeah, okay. So we've received correspondence about this, including one very
lengthy petition signed by, I don't know, 50, 60 people. I didn't count the number. Uh,
and we've received correspondence before, which is .... which drew our attention to this
particular issue, and.....which led us to ask staff to collect some information and all that.
It seems to me pretty clear we need to take action .... uh, perhaps contracting with an
entity like White Buffalo, urn .... uh, to cull the herd, perhaps. Um .... uh, but it seems to
me also that it might be wise to revive the Deer Task Force. There's.... there is a need for
some kind of periodic review of the status of the deer population and, you know, whether
it's grown too large and something needs to be done. But I'm wondering what you folks
think about this, uh.... cause we need to provide staff with some guidance and, uh, Geoff,
did you want to add anything into this to help us get this discussion going?
Fruin/ I don't think so. Um .... (laughter) You have .... you have the history there, um.....it's, I
think the, you know, we have a right deadline if you want to do something this fall, and
I .... I'm not sure it's realistic to .... to think we could do something this fall, if you want to
really go through the robust public input process, which is called for on an issue like this
and, uh, which some of you probably recall from living in the community, uh, 10, 15, 20
years ago when this was a .... a very hot topic. So, unfortunately we have that .... that
pretty tight deadline for any type of action this year. So, uh, probably the first discussion
you need to have is do you see this as an extremely urgent issue where we need to work
towards getting something in front of the DNR by April 15th, or do you want to take a
more .... a slower, more methodical process and whether it's with the Deer Commission or
public input sessions, hear some feedback from the community?
Cole/ I feel there's some degree of urgency to it. Um, we have received a lot of reports on this.
You know you think about, um, I wish we would not have to do it, but I think the
paramount consideration that we all have on Council is public safety, and this is a public
safety issue, um, especially given our proximity to Interstate 80, um, the other major
four -lane highways, um, so I .... I think we need to move forward with it. I know it was
extraordinarily controversial, um, we may take some heat for this one, but I think it is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 23
something that we need to do, but that said, um, so I'd like to expeditious .... that's my
vote, but I also think in terms of the long-term, if we could have a parallel track, to the
extent that'd be feasible for .... for, cause I'm always, I know we're all public input
people. We love that process. To the extent that's feasible, I'd like to see a parallel track
on that, uh, but not to the extent that it would delay the April 15th deadline.
Taylor/ I would like to hear, maybe from Liz would have some ideas on this, as far as a
relocation alternative, besides the ... a .... a kill method. Do you have .... ideas on that?
Ford/ Um, I can answer that question as best as I know, but I .... I'd like to address the timeline
just, um, to make sure that it's clear.....that the Natural Resource Commission considers,
um, DMZs they call `em, deer managements zones, and they are otherwise known as bow
hunts, and there are bow hunts conducted in .... in a variety of cities and counties all over
Iowa. And that is the April 15th deadline. If. ... if that's what we choose to do, and there
are so many of these DMZs out there that the city manages, and most cities it's the police
or fire or something like that because of the nature of what's.... what's being done. But,
um, so putting together that kind of process to get that approved, um, would ... we would
be able to use some of the plans that are already out there and look at what other cities are
doing and things like that. But if...the Council decides to go with sharpshooting, which
was done, uh, historically for .... for a number of years, that's a little bit of a different
process, and that goes in front of the Natural.... Natural Resource Commission, not
through the DNR. We go right to the Commission in Des Moines and, um, we need to
get on their agenda to do that, and I think, um, that's going to take a .... a, quite a bit
longer process to .... to get that done. So I wanted to make sure 1 addressed that. And,
um, to answer your question about, you know, alternatives to, you know, re .... rehoming
the deer or, um, sterilizing them. You know I've tried to read as much as I possibly can
in the .... in the last couple weeks about this issue, and I'm .... I'm not a wildlife biologist
but, um, my understanding of wildlife and .... and how, uh, the humans tend to relocate it,
that the survival rates of animals that are relocated is really very low, and anytime you
take a species, whether it's a raccoon or a deer or a bear and you take it out of its
territory, the survival rate just plummets. And so removing the deer and putting them
somewhere else, um, isn't ... isn't really the best solution for the deer, you know, either,
even though it seems to be the most humane, you know, and it sounds like the
nicest .... the nicest solution. It just....it doesn't work for the deer. Um, and I've, you
know, I've just read as much as I can about sterilization, but urn .... I .... I ..... I wouldn't be
the person to answer that. Really it's almost a wildlife biologist that we need to ask that
question, you know, if it would be .... something that would be feasible in this area
or .... so.....
Taylor/ Thank you.
Throgmorton/ So I warm be clear about the timing part of this. If we .... thought that it would be
good to do a ..... if we thought it would be good to cull the herd, um.....by hiring some
firm, uh, and using guns basically to cull the herd with, how long would that take?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 24
Ford/ Well, that process, the .... the National, um, Natural Resource Commission calls it a, um, a
special harvest, and we are actually the only city, the only municipality in Iowa that has
ever done that, and um, so they don't actually have a set process for that like they do for
the DMZs, deer management zones, otherwise known as bow hunts. There's more of a
timeline and, you know, process that's been set up for years for those because they're so
common. The, um, sharpshooting is (mumbled) so .... um, so the, um, the Commission,
we would have to go in front of the Commission in Des Moines and so they would put us
on their agenda. So I believe that, um.....their April meeting, um, is the second week of
April and I think they start working on the agenda about three weeks before that.
Mims/ Well, my preference is to try and get the approval for White Buffalo or some other
organization to come in. I .... I think when I look at the .... the pros and cons, um, that are
in the memo in terms of the bow hunting versus sharpshooting, the amount of time that it
takes to actually get the numbers down through bow hunting can take years, um, I .... the
thing that I really liked about White Buffalo when we had them in before is this is a
group that knows what they're doing. They are highly trained. I think a lot of them are
ex -military sharpshooters, as I recall. They have an incredibly high standard in terms of,
you know, they have like a target on the sides ... on the deer the size of a quarter, and if
they miss it, they're in trouble. I mean they drop them as .... one shot, the deer's dead.
No .... I won't say no suffering, but as little as you can possibly have. The idea of, um, I
mean I grew up in a family of hunters, but the idea of a deer running around with an
arrow sticking out of it, I think you got a lot more wounding and suffering with people,
amateurs out there, even if they're having to do some testing that they've got some
proficiency with a bow and arrow, um, I would rather have it done that .... with the
sharpshooters. Um, so I .... I would rather see us start the process with.... with the DNR
and see .... see if we can get a .... we've done it before, and how many years did we do it
before? Do you .... maybe it told in here (several talking)
Ford/ .....first year was 1998.
Cole/ Yeah.
Ford/ And they went until 2010 was the last year, 2000 .... winter of 2009/10.
Mims/ And missed just maybe one or two years in there that we didn't do it or something, but
yes, we did it for quite a few years, and .... I don't know if we had to get approval every
time, but let's see if our luck holds and go back.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, tell me if I'm remembering a .... a couple, uh, bits of information correctly.
I think in your memo you say that ... uh, a .... a January 2018 report from White Buffalo,
uh, indicated that it had conducted a count and those counts are probably three times as
large as they were 10 years ago, and what they call a .... a density similar to what was
present when we initiated the sharpshooting program in 2000.
Ford/ Yes, I believe that's correct.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 25
Throgmorton/ Yeah. Okay. So the numbers are pretty large, and we've gotten a lot of
complaints from people, uh, it sounds to me like we do need to act, uh, I
think.... sharpshooters is the way to go. I do believe we need to reconvene a Deer Task
Force though. So, we might get a little bit of, uh, have, uh, preliminary steps taken about
that, Geoff, in terms of tryin' to identify who the members might be or the .... the, uh, type
of expertise that would be involved. We have historical experience to go on there, and
what the purpose of the Deer Task Force would be, cause there's this history now of 10
years or whatever of ...ebbing and flowing of the Deer Task Force, and I guess Sue
know .... Sue knows that pretty well.
Mims/ But I do like Rockne's point of trying to do that parallel, of not waiting to get a Deer Task
Force in place before trying to get on the agenda.
Fruin/ I .... I guess I would ask if. ... if. ... if as a Council, and I don't know if you're there yet, but
I'm gonna assume a little bit. If as a Council you decide you want to do sharpshooting
and that you want to take action this year, what are you .... what are you really asking the
....the Task Force to provide? It....
Mims/ I'm only asking if the DNR's gonna come back and say have we done this. We can say
we're in the process of doing it and we'll complete it before we actually bring White
Buffalo in.
Fruin/ Okay.
Throgmorton/ I think ... I mean it's completely appropriate question (laughs) and Geoff, I think
one .... one aspect is that we need to have some continual review, or assessment, of what's
happening with the deer population, instead of going 10 years and going, oh my gosh!
It's now three times as large as it was way back (mumbled)
Fruin/ ...beyond the current set of decisions on whether we take action it's more of a long-term
commitment.
Thomas/ I mean my question is is it sounds like there are lots of these zones all over Iowa.
What .... what are these, what are the cities where these zones are located, what are their
practices with respect to .... managing the situation in terms ... do they have a task forces as
we were discussing or ... what? I mean....
Throgmorton/ But those are all bow hunting.
Ford/ They are all bow hunting and they .... of all, the cities that I made contact with and talked to
the people who are managing the program, they have been doing it for a number of years
and their .... their numbers are at a manageable level in those areas (both talking) and so I
don't .... I don't get the sense that they have to have a task force because they are
continuing to do them, management, every year.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 26
Thomas/ So that ... that seem ... I mean as a strategy, the .... trying to get the numbers down through
sharpshooting and then allowing hunting, why .... why is Iowa City the only place that has
gone the sharpshooting route? I mean it .... I don't know. I don't know. I don't have
much background (laughs) in this area but it .... uh....
Throgmorton/ I think that's a useful question and we have a history of this, and so I think Sue or
others could provide us with an explanation as to why the Councils back then made the
decision they made.
Dulek/ Yeah, the Task Force back then or the Committee, I mean .... they looked at the
humaneness of it and ... and that was it. They felt if you were going to cull the herd, that
was the only way to do it, and that bow hunting just was not .... was not acceptable, and
that ... that was it. Plus it .... it's expensive, and perhaps other communities were .... were
not willing to do that, but the .... the City was, but that's really what it came down to was
the humaneness.
Cole/ Sharpshooting, I'm supportive of that.
Throgmorton/ All right. Do you have enough clarity.... about what we think?
Fruin/ Yeah, I .... if I'm .... let's make sure. Um, you want us to initiate, um, efforts with the...
with the DNR, the State commission, this year with the intention of trying to do
something this fall, if possible. We don't know if that's possible yet. And at the same
time try to reconvene a committee to, um, not only help us .... not only help inform us
with this year, but perhaps check in once a year, twice a year, to .... study the issue so we
don't lose sight of it going forward.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, that sounds (both talking)
Fruin/ ...more or less correct? Okay.
Throgmorton/ All right. Thank you, Liz.
Ford/ Thank you!
Throgmorton/ It's 18 minutes till 7:00. Why don't we, um, adjourn this work session and come
back to it after the formal meeting. Okay.
(BREAK TO FORMAL)
(RECONVENE WORK SESSION)
Review the draft 2018-19 strategic plan [IP4 of 3/1 Info Packet]:
Throgmorton/ Uh, do we need to take a break? (several responding) No, no, no .... apparently
not! Okay! So we left off at .... the moment where we would begin reviewing the draft
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 27
2018/19 strategic plan. I want to draw your attention to a document that Kellie circulated
on my behalf. Thank you, Kellie! Uh, and it's the one that has yellow and blue on it. So
this is basically the same document that staff presented to us in our, uh, in our, uh, packet,
with one.....one modification basically. It's my effort to edit the draft in minor
ways ... uh, that I think are minor but make a difference. So everything that's marked
in .... looks like dark blue, uh, are .... is material I would recommend that we add, and
everything that is, uh, crossed through is material we would delete. So .... I don't know if
you've had a chance to read through this. So.....if not .... all right.....so what I'd like to
do is just go through it, maybe item by item. I think it'll be quick. But I sh...should
emphasize.... regardless of the edits, uh, the bottom line question is: do we feel good
about this proposed strategic plan? Or is there something that needs to be modified in
any significant way? This is our shot, and I'm not saying there is anything that needs to
be modified really significantly, but this is our moment to do that. So going through the
minor edits, uh, right at, uh, on the first page..... under, uh, under the line `Step l.' Uh,
Ashley, yeah, under the line .... that says `Step 1 Confirmation' (mumbled) (several
talking) Yeah, so I'd recommend that we include the verb `foster a' instead of just have
.....the words `a more inclusive, just, and sustainable (mumbled).' You've .... y'all have
heard me talk about this before. I think the verbs matter. And then scrolling down, under
the ... you know, it's harder to read on the page, Ashley, because the blue is darker than
that is. But if you scroll down to.....
Monroe/ (mumbled) be able to edit this, it's not (mumbled)
Throgmorton/ Oh, you're trying to edit? (both talking)
Frain/ I can take notes, Ashley. Looks like there's a license issue.
Monroe/ I haven't.... well, let me .... let me see. It may just be that particular section, but yeah....
I have a second copy, uh, here. It doesn't have the marks that you provided is the only
thing.
Frain/ Ashley, just .... just work off the Mayor's and I'll take notes and we (both talking)
Monroe/ I will do that! Okay! (both talking)
Throgmorton/ All right (both talking) scroll down a little bit farther. Yeah, in, uh, what is it?
(several talking) Paragraph 2b or whatever. Uh, I'm suggesting deleting the words
`after'....(several talking) ....no.....adding the words `after consulting with stakeholders.'
I .... I know we had a conversation about, uh, the .... the, um ...... sorry! Uh, the .... the point
about creating a historic preservation district downtown and it....it would appear that we
were already saying we were going to create an historic preservation district. I think I
wanted to put language in there that would indicate we're gonna consult with people
about that. And....
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 28
Mims/ That's fine. I would just (both talking) Yeah, I would just encourage staff to wordsmith
that maybe a little bit, cause I'm not sure it's a grammatically correct sentence. (several
talking)
Throgmorton/ .....I'm sure I'm fine with that. And in, uh 2c....
Thomas/ Excuse me, there .... there is a typo under b, `that far apart....... far apart' on the last line.
I think it's `for part.' (several responding)
Throgmorton/ Well it might be the `far apart' (laughter)
Thomas/ The far end!
Throgmorton/ Good eyes, John! All right, and then 2c, I'm suggesting.... well, this is really
trivial. Suggesting just putting in, uh, `the City's,' instead of `in the community' at the
end of that sentence. (several responding) And item 3.....3a that is. Uh, I .... I don't
think we were suggesting adopting a new affordable housing action plan. I think we were
suggesting modifying the affordable housing action plan. So that's .... how I changed the
language to...indicate `modify the existing affordable housing action plan' to include
,new strategies, etc.' and then to add at the end `especially for low to moderate -income
households.' So you might warm read that whole.... sentence to see if you're
comfortable with that. (several responding)
Mims/ Isn't all affordable housing for low to moderate.....income housing? I mean households.
It's not gonna be for high income households.
Throgmorton/ I .... I don't know.
Fruin/ Are you looking at more, uh, we talk about income levels. Are you looking at more that
30 to 60% range, is that what you're trying to get at?
Throgmorton/ Well... yeah, my understanding is that there is concern in the community about the
overall affordability.....especially for low to moderate -income households. But ... there's
a general concern about the affordability of housing. So .... I'm just tryin' to accentuate
that.
Mims/ Yeah, I .... I guess I'm not .... I guess I'm not comfortable with it cause I .... I don't think
it's clear. I mean .... (both talking) I don't think we (both talking) last part, the
`especially for low to moderate -income households.' To me .... the low to moderate -
income households are the only households that we're looking at for affordable housing.
We're not looking at affordable (both talking)
Salih/ That's not true!
Mims/ (both talking) ...affordable housing for high-income households.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 29
Salih/ No, but when .... it different, like when you talk about people who had like 60% of the area
median income (unable to understand) 80% or you talking about the very low income
people (unable to understand) We haven't done anything for the very low income
people. You know we have not, even the 10% or the 15% that we have on our TIF policy
and all this kind of policy is not consider for those, the very low income. (both talking)
Mims/ That's not what this says to me (both talking)
Salih/ It say `especially for low to moderate -income,' which is gonna include 50%, 30%, and all
(both talking)
Mims/ ...depends on how you define it. I .... I think these are very vague words, that's all I'm
saying. (both talking)
Taylor/ I think Susan makes a good point, cause I think there are middle-income folks that
perhaps .... and.....and you hear that, they can't even afford say a 300,000 or $350,000
home. So, you know, maybe you're.... you're saying maybe just a period after
affordability of housing in Iowa City, period. So for ... for all folks, making it affordable.
(several talking)
Fruin/ ...important distinction here is, um, there's a range. When we're ... even when we're
talking about, urn.... affordable housing, you know, we start at .... 80% of area me....
median income for home ownership opportunities. (mumbled) then go to 60% for rental,
but on .... on a number of our projects, we go below there. We have done some things,
particularly on the LIHTC projects that we've supported. They go to.....they go as low
as 30% of the area median income. It .... it is important what is in here, because the
strategies and the cost of subsidizing housing at the 30% income level are .... are very
different than what they may be for the 60% or the 80% level. So .... particularly on the
cost side. They are....this does have meaning, but I think Susan's right. You need to
define what that .... what you mean for low to moderate -income.
Mims/ And I think that should come when we actually modify the existing affordable housing
action (several talking) plan, not .... not within the strategic plan. It should come within
the plan, the affordable housing plan itself ...would be my recommendation.
Throgmorton/ Well I ... I don't warm make a big fight of it, um, cause I think we do understand,
basically, what we're tryin' to do with this particular item. Uh, Rockne?
Cole/ I was just gonna say I know our consultant a lot of times went like the strategic plan
language and what's sort of a detail of the strategic plan. I view that as sort of more of a
detail and something that we'll work out through the modify process.
Throgmorton/ Okay, so we'll just put a period after `Iowa City.' All right, moving down to.....
(mumbled) 3.....3c. Yeah, uh, sorry, this may not be at all fruitful, but I ... because there
are two sub -elements below that, and they both have to do with the park plan or park
action. I thought we could put in `for parks this includes,' just for clarity.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 30
Cole/ That's fine.
Mims/ I'll wait till we go through yours and then I'll come back.
Throgmorton/ Okay. And, let's see now, and then, uh, on 3d, I'm suggesting adding the words
`for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.' This has to do with safety of roadways.
Yeah?
Cole/ Agreed.
Throgmorton/ Okay. Seems like there's support for that. Um .... moving down to .... item 5.
Yeah, under `collaborative, uh, problem solving.' Basically I'm suggesting changing the
previous language to read `improve collaborative problem solving with governmental
entities in the region on topics of shared interest.'
Mims/ Think that flows better.
Throgmorton/ The next one, 3 ... what is it, 5c. Yeah, I'm just rewording the, uh, original text
here, so what I'm suggesting is, sorry, is `impro....' Ah, that doesn't work either.
`Improve relationships with members of the Iowa House and Senate by reaching.... no,
I'm sorry, by reaching out to legislators and other elected officials in eastern Iowa, as
well as by working through City lobbyists.'
Cole/ I guess I would like to say `throughout Iowa.' It's a goal, um.....I don't know that we're
gonna actually go out to western Iowa, but that would be my preference. So.....
Throgmorton/ My thinking was that it's a lot easier to reach out to legislators who live within
reasonable distance of Iowa City, and we should start there. I mean ... that's what my
thinking was.
Mims/ My only question with taking out State of Iowa is ... the issue of actually reaching out to...
the administration of the State. I suppose we can do that through our lobbyists, but we
may have opportunities and want to at times reach out directly to the Governor or other
administrative staff on certain issues, and so, um, I think it would be beneficial to ... leave
in the State of Iowa. Not just limit it to the legislature by saying Iowa House and Senate.
Throgmorton/ Could you be a little more precise, cause State of Iowa, you know, this big thing
that involves (several talking)
Mims/ ...but you know what, depending on what it is, it might be the DNR. It might be .... I don't
even know all the State departments. I mean, you know, it might be the Department of
Education because we have a.....an issue that we wanna talk to them about (mumbled)
lobby for our local school district or something (both talking)
Thomas/ That's true, we .... we just met with the Iowa DOT. So .... (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 31
Throgmorton/ ...don't we .... doesn't the staff do that routinely with regard to all sorts of
activities? And so what we're really talking about is.....elected officials (both talking)
Cole/ I think we need to improve with the current executive branch, um, including the elected
officials. I think that's a problem as far as I can tell.
Taylor/ Well I .... I think, cause if I'm recalling correctly, the original intent was to kind of
improve or show the real image of. ... of Johnson County and Iowa City.
Cole/ Uh huh.
Taylor/ Because it seems as though, uh, folks further out, even outside of our area, have a
different opinion of..of us, like we're our own little entity and .... do things our way, so I
thought it was the .... the intent was for the entire State or other departments, to improve
our image or change our image.
Throgmorton/ Well, if y'all like it the way it was, we'll just leave it the way it was, but uh, I
wanted to.....I.....I thought we could provide a little more precision.
Cole/ I like it the way it was, except instead of State of Iowa just the `executive branch and
legislature' by reaching out.
Throgmorton/ Well I'm .... I'm okay with that. I don't .... it's not somethin' we should deliberate
about (both talking) So did you hear that, Ashley?
Fruin/ I've got it!
Throgmorton/ Oh, sorry! Thanks, Geoff. Okay, on ... item 6a. Uh, yeah .... so.....the.... the last
part of that, um, that sentence, I'm suggesting changing it to read: Ensure the next two
budgets contain sufficient funds to facilitate achieving its goals.
Taylor/ Sounds good.
Cole/ Fine!
Throgmorton/ Item 6b.....I didn't know what `enhance efforts' meant, so I thought `support
efforts' might be a little more accurate.
Thomas/ Yeah.
Throgmorton/ On item 7a, uh, suggest deleting the words `in the .... in the community.' And in
item 7b, deleting the words `evaluate and' and just capitalize the verb `consider.'
Cole/ Fine.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 32
Throgmorton/ And in, what is that, 7....7c, I'll just read what I'm, the revised version I'm
recommending. Explore .... uh, sorry, hold on. Uh.... explore expanded use of racial
equity toolkit, of a racial equity toolkit, within City government, embedding it within
City departments at Council levels. (several responding) Okay, so .... I think .... I guess
we're okay with all that, but Susan, I know you had something you wanted to say, and
maybe others had specific, uh, recommendations or requests or whatever.
Mims/ Yeah, I mean I don't know if it's worth it tonight. I mean it may be just when we vote on
it. I've ..... I've got concerns with certain things that are .... and I'm in the minority with
that, so I don't know if it's worth taking the time, uh, to go through that tonight. Um, I
will address it though, um, in the formal meeting when we're ready to vote on it. I .... I
think there's some things in here that.... aren't.....that don't necessarily need to be in a
strategic plan. I .... I'm concerned under 3c that we've gone into the detail ... I mean we
had a very, to me, I thought a very minimal discussion about a plan for rubberizing
surface.... putting in rubberized surfaces at the park playgrounds. We talked a little bit
about the significant additional cost, and that what we're currently.... while this may be
better, what we're currently doing does meet the ADA, and so I just .... I thought for a
very minimal conversation, this was incredible detail to be putting into a strategic plan.
Um.....
Throgmorton/ Well may .... maybe (mumbled) maybe you should argue it should be deleted.
Mims/ So, yeah, I would delete it. Um, I .... I've got a concern in here.....everywhere that we're
ensuring that the next two budgets contain sufficient funds to do something. Um.....
because we don't know what the budget's gonna look like in two years. The next two
years. We don't know what the backfill's gonna be and .... um, I think by putting it .... I...
I understand the intent, that we really want to move forward with these things, but we
also .... to me that's part of the budgeting process of looking at those priorities and we
theoretically could get to the point in those next two budgets that we're in such a crunch
that we can't do those kinds of things. Um, so I .... I don't .... I .... I just, there's something
about that language that, urn .... and it's in here in a number of places. The... and again, on
3c, the .... 3c2, um, I .... I didn't take the time to go back and look at the park's master
plan, um, in terms of developing strategies. I ... I guess I'm not .... sure that we.....I'm not
sure that as a Council that we have really agreed for a distribution of destination parks.....
across our city. I mean we have .... we have neighborhood parks. We have po... pocket
parks. We have those .... I really haven't heard us have that detailed conversation that we
are committed to "destination parks" across the city, so I'm concerned about that
language inhere. Uh, I .... I think this, particularly those two, I think take us beyond what
we've had... really significant conversation with.
Throgmorton/ Yeah. Fair enough. I would suggest we do discuss those two tonight. All right.
Let's see if there are any other specific .... suggestions anybody has. Okay, well I'm not
hearing anything. So, all right .... so Susan's suggesting that we delete 3c, i, and ii, right?
Mims/ Uh huh.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 33
Throgmorton/ Yeah. And probably the for parks this includes also, that .... those words. And
you've already said why (both talking)
Mims/ ...think I have.
Throgmorton/ I think you're right! I .... I think they are more detailed than this needs to be. My
recollection about the park's master plan is that it does identify equity gaps and that
to ... to carry out that plan.....staff would have to be addressing equity concerns. So I
don't think it's necessary to include that, and I do not believe it's necessary to include in
the strategic plan considering a plan for rubberized surfacing at park playgrounds. So,
I .... I would agree that i and ii should be deleted, but maybe somebody else has a different
view, so....
Thomas/ Well I, you know, those were two that I had raised. On.....on the second item, if we
were to say `for the equitable distribution of parks within an easy and safe walking
distance of all residents' I .... I think that's fair to .... it's fair to say that that was in the
master plan. So .... so if. ... if all of you agree to that, then, you know, I .... I understand...
the .... the, we .... we should have further discussion on the notion of `destination parks.'
Uh, but the .... the equity issue I think is an important piece of the master plan, um, so
that .... that would be my suggestion on that. The, on the rubberized surfacing, um, you
know, that could be.....something moved to .... some other list. I don't know that it needs
to be (laughter)
Throgmorton/ Well we've got our tentative work session list.
Thomas/ Uh, yeah, I mean I ... I do think that is a concern with the, urn ... with our parks, and I .... I
would add our school systems, you know, it's an issue that really came to the surface
with .... with the schools, um....
Mims/ Yeah, I don't object to having further discussion. I just don't think (both talking)
Thomas/ ....so I think, you know I guess my .... I'm happy to say yes, let's delete it, um ... and
move it out of the strategic plan and onto a ..... another list for consideration.
Cole/ That'd be fine.
Throgmorton/ Okay, so (both talking)
Taylor/ Yeah, as long as we would continue to, urn ..... to give some thought to the rubberized
surfacing, cause I really thought that we didn't take a lot of time to discuss this. We
talked about the cost and then it was kind of nixed because it was expensive, but I think
all in all, the overall cost would balance out because we could .... we could try one park at
a time or something and that's what I would like to do, so as long as we would reconsider
it. Yes, perhaps this isn't the place for it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 34
Throgmorton/ Okay, so we're hearing that we .... we warm move .... the item about rubberized
surfacing to our pending .... (mumbled) (several talking)
Fruin/ .... suggest .... we'll add it to the pending list. I ..... I would suggest you ask the Parks
Commission for some feedback, and once we get that feedback, then you'd move to
schedule it.
Salih/ But you know I just don't wanna hear that we're moving it because it's expensive and we
don't know what the budget look like for next two year or whatever. If we are moving it
because we want to like look into it and like try to see what we can do about this, or have
like some, like the (unable to understand) some numbers and try to have a plan for even if
we try it in one park, not the whole like everything, that would be good. You can just
take it away, but just...(unable to understand) expensive, no, I just....
Throgmorton/ Yeah. I think the .... the most important point is that the park's master plan already
contains a lot that it....it.....it has, uh, intends for the City to do, and.....
Salih/ Sure.
Throgmorton/ So .... we .... we probably don't need to pull this one item out and include it in the
strategic plan. We .... we can put it into that tentative list of work session topics.
Mims/ Well and that's why I would take number 2 out also, because we've emphasized in the
strategic plan that we want to make progress towards completing the park's master plan,
and they gave us, you know, kind of a....a timeline of getting some of those things done.
Now if we don't agree with that timeline, then I think we should go back and have a
potential discussion with the Parks and Rec Commission and with staff about our issues
with the timeline, and I assume that .... and again I'd have to go back and look at that
detail, but ..... I don't.....I just don't think in a strategic plan we need to get into the detail
when we've already said we want to make.... significant progress on the bicycle master
plan and the park's master plan, and I think that's enough detail there.
Fruin/ I think the key with this item is .... uh, cause when you're talkin' about the equity gaps, I
think you're talking about the need for additional park land in certain areas of town.
And .... um, for those areas that are built out, that would require land acquisition. That's a
much more involved process. Our budget doesn't really, it doesn't set aside funds for us
to go out and acquire park land say in the Central District, which has a noted deficiency
of. ... of park land. Um, I think it would be appropriate for the strategic plan if your
expectation is that we're going into those built -out areas and we're gonna find land to
purchase and convert to ... to park land because that's a major undertaking. That'll take a
lot of staff time. Otherwise we look to be opportunistic. We looked at ... for what a
Chaddick Park property comes available that we ... we pounce on it and we ... we get it and
secure it. Um, otherwise.....we're not gonna make a whole lot of progress. So, whether
it's in here or not, we'll need that direction from you on how aggressive you want us to
be to overcome some of those deficiencies that are noted in the ... in the park's master
plan.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 35
Tbrogmorton/ So, John, you made a specific suggestion, uh, could you restate it and then we'll
find out if there's support for your suggestion.
Thomas/ Well I .... again .... like the question of rubberized surfacing, um ..... I ...... suggested this
in part because I wasn't seeing it reflected in the CIP. So I wanted to bring attention to it.
Uh, as long as we .... we pick it up, um, I'm happy to see it disappear from the strategic
plan. Uh, one .... one other, just to mention, since Geoff mentioned some of the other
ways .... this equity, you know, question can be addressed, the plan also talks about joint
use agreements with the School District, which was in the 1934 plan (laughs) uh, so
anyway, I mean I .... that would be the most cost-efficient way of doing it and there are
school sites, um, that could.....and that also applies to the rubberized surfacing. I know
the Schoo.... this could be a joint, uh, expenditure between the District and the City, you
know, so there are .... cost is an issue. So it seemed to me that would be.....one strategy
would be to .... to, uh, for both the District and the City, to .... to address it.
Throgmorton/ Yeah. You're.... you're surely right, but we're not gonna (both talking)
Thomas/ No, no!
Throgmorton/ (both talking) tonight.
Thomas/ ......got into the weeds a little bit (several talking)
Throgmorton/ So do .... I think the question is this: do you want to create a new paragraph 3c that
starts with the .... the verb 'develop ........ develop strategies to address the equity gaps
noted in the park's master plan and plan for equi.... equitable distribution of parks within
an easy and safe distance of all residents. Do .... do you want that?
Thomas/ No, as I said, I think it .... we, I think staff understands that that is a concern. We can
pull it from the, um....
Throgmorton/ (both talking) ...so I guess we're clear about that. Thanks, John. Anything else
anybody wants to bring up with regard to the strategic plan?
Mims/ The only other one I would have is the placement.... of 6b. Um, support efforts to
increase the reach of the Parks and Recreation Foundation. It .... I don't know, it just
seems odd to me that it's under `promote environmental sustainability.' I guess I would
look at it more under, um ...... foster healthy neighborhoods throughout the city,' because
by .... helping the Parks and Rec Foundation grow, um, I think that's gonna do a lot of
things in terms of helping improve some of our parks, maybe raising some more money
for those. Um, it might also be, you know, kids participating in activities, which I think
also helps foster healthy neighborhoods if our kids are doing good things. It just, I don't
know, it just struck me as .... a little bit odd that we ended up with it under promote
environmental sustainability, but.....it's not a huge issue, but .... I just thought it made
more sense to be under `healthy neighborhoods.'
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 36
Cole/ I guess for record purposes I would agree with that. It doesn't make sense under
`environmental sustainability.'
Thomas/ Well it could if we're talking natural areas, but um.....I..... I'm (both talking)
Mims/ Yeah, that's a good point, and it does depend on what you're using the money for (both
talking)
Thomas/ ....sort of depends what .... I.....I think it .... I .... I could support it either way, frankly.
Mims/ Yeah.
Throgmorton/ Well we have this natural management.... natural managements areas (several
talking) plan that we're gonna hear more about later on. So, uh, yeah so we can keep ... if
we understand it that way, we could keep it (several talking)
Mims/ Just if people ask about it .... I think, yeah, having that idea that it coulda gone either
place. So....
Salih/ Uh huh.
Throgmorton/ Okay. Seems to me we have a plan! Thank you!
Fruin/ So this will ...... uh, I think we'll try to pull this together for your next, uh, agenda. It'll
just be a resolution, uh, that .... that you'll adopt the plan and then we'll pretty it up and
put it in a ... a more presentable fashion down the road. Um, the next step with this is to
discuss the indicators that you want, um, to .... to help measure progress, and so in one of
your next couple of information packets (noise on mic, difficult to hear) that process by
suggesting some indicators to you and then you can determine if those are sufficient or if
you have other metrics in mind to measure progress on this plan.
Information Packet Discussion [IP8 and IP10, February 151:
Throgmorton/ Yeah. Okay. Good! All right, we can move ahead to IP #10 in the February 16
info packet. Uh, the one about Langenberg Avenue. Langenberg Avenue traffic control.
I'll tell ya what I think. I think we should follow the staff's recommendation.
Mims/ I agree.
Throgmorton/ Persuades me. But I also think we should share the staffs memo with the
residents who have expressed concerns in the past...... about traffic, etc., on Langenberg,
if we can identify who they were. Kellie, I don't know if that's easy to do. Think she
said it's easy. All right.
Fruin/ We can do it. You'll be inviting a conversation. And if that's... that's what you want....
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 37
Throgmorton/ Well I don't know, what's.... so whatda y'all think?
Thomas/ Well, I'll just .... you know.....I think I mentioned at our last meeting, in looking at the
staff review, on the second page, uh.....third paragraph of the second page, it's noted that
the speed volume and collision data does not suggest there is a significant safety concern
for motorists on Langenberg. And .... and my response to that was, you know, that's good
to hear. Um, however, um, you know, the .... the other concern I have is with the
residents, and so, urn ...... how do the residents feel about safety on Langenberg? Um, we
don't know. Uh, you know, I .... I guess I kinda, for some reason, thought that
there....there would be some reaching out to the residents to get an idea of what their
concerns were with safety on Langenberg. And .... and the other thing I would say is that
....you know, as we have discussed on Langenberg, this .... this is .... much of the safety
concerns on Langenberg are .... are resulting from the fact that it is I would say a de facto
arterial until we have McCollister Street. So the .... the, uh, and this was useful
information in terms of, you know, average daily traffic, uh, which varied quite a bit from
the two data points, but in any event, somewhere around, on average, 1,500 cars per day
are traveling that corridor. Um.....I don't know what we would expect once McCollister
is built, but it's probably 300 to 400 cars per day perhaps. So .... so we have a very....
significant disparity or difference between the level of traffic now and what it will be. So
it seemed to me that that provided an opportunity to frame this, not as a ... something that's
a long-term concern, but a short-term concern. What can we do, uh, in the short-term
to .... to address the safety concerns of the residents, whatever they may be. I don't know
what they are, you know, we haven't .... we haven't had that, uh, conversation with the
residents. I don't know. Um .... but it may be, um, that they have a more refined
understanding of where safety is a concern along that corridor. Um, and I would, you
know, I don't know that I want to personally, you know, insofar as we don't know what
their concerns are, uh, if. ... if I want to say what my thoughts are on the question related
to all -ways stop signs, because that's assuming that's what the residents will ask for, and
I don't know what they will ask for. Um.....but, uh, you know, I .... it seems.....it seems
to me, especially insofar as this is a temporary condition, um, it provides an opportunity
to ... to try to listen to what the residents are concerned about, and ..... see what the
remedies may be. Um.....and if there are concerns about, well that doesn't conform to at
least some of the concerns as raised under the discussion of solutions, such as with stop
signs that they may result in more rear -end collisions, motorists rolling through stop
signs, higher traffic speeds downstream, um ..... you know..... they..... they may as I
certainly have some concerns as to whether those are .... are accurate descriptions of what
will happen, um, with the potential possibility of putting in stop signs along that corridor,
if that were something the residents were to raise. Um....
Cole/ I ... I guess I would like to consider stop signs along with the resident input. As I've been
able to observe over two years, sort of how we evaluate traffic control devices, obviously
we have to have a standard set of criteria. Obviously staff goes to school for this.
They're trained in that. But I do think that .... that the criteria that we use are far too
heavily weighted for automobiles. Um, when we talk about performance of, um, street
corners or highways, we're always concerned about traffic flow. Um, and increasing the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 38
volume of traffic. And I think that we need to make sure that we have a standardized set
of criteria for pedestrian safety, as well as taking into consideration the concerns of the,
uh, of the neighborhood. Um, that may make traffic more slow. Um, but that I think
is ... is a goal. I would like to consider at some point a 20 -is -plenty in some of our
neighborhoods .... so our kids can feel safer, um, and if it slows down traffic, and there's
more queueing, um, that's actually the intent of purpose. Um, so I would like us, and I
know .... staff needs to have some standardized set of criteria that they have to be able to
apply. Um, but .... I would like us to consider this .... um, in consultation with the
residents.
Taylor/ I .... I agree with that, because I.....you know, you mentioned, uh, we'd be inviting
conversations as if that was a bad thing, but we have neighborhood meetings about other
things, developments and zoning changes and, uh, it was ma ... made mention, um, as John
said, uh, in ... in the memo that there were not significant safety concerns, but there were
like .... there were three traffic accidents in ... in, granted 10 years, but I don't think I've
had a traffic accident on my street in 10 years. Uh, and are we also saying that it's okay,
uh, to drive 26 to 32 miles per hour, uh, for that 15% that drove over the speed limit? I ... I
think we're sending the wrong message there, and it would be helpful to meet with the
residents and maybe, as you said, the four-way stop signs wouldn't be what they'd want
but maybe there's something else they've got some ideas about, cause there is a concern,
I think, for little kids. I'm in that neighborhood quite often and there's little kids riding
their bikes on the sidewalks, all the time, and they're not paying attention to traffic. So
I .... I think we need to take a better look at this.
Fruin/ I just want to clarify .... I'm.....I'm not suggesting it's bad to engage the residents. We
have engaged the residents considerably over the last several years. The ... the fact that
there're speed bumps on here tells you that we went through a very, uh, detailed process
with the residents to come up with a solution, and at that time speed bumps were the
solution. Now there's some residents, I don't know if it's all or not, that .... that aren't
happy with that. I can tell ya, you know, the.....the counts and the observations that
we've taken have shown that the .... the speed bumps have helps a little. I'm not saying
it's created a safe street, but it's helped a little. We've had officers spend considerable
amount of time taking, uh, traffic speeds out there. They've documented it all. I can give
you reports on the times that they've spent out there and the speeds that they've observed.
They .... they are .... are not showing alarming, uh.... uh, speeding numbers. Now, is that
because they're visible and people are slowin' down and anticipating? Perhaps there's
some of that, but generally when we're sittin' out there, we'll .... and there's a speeding
problem, we'll identify it and it'll....it'll result in tickets bein' issued. That hasn't been
the case here. All I'm suggesting is if you .... if you want us to engage the neighborhood
again and have a conversation, we're more than happy to do that. We do that all the time.
That's... that's our job. Um, I'm just suggesting that .... the solutions here are limited. We
can put in stop signs, even though they're not warranted. As long as we accept that ... um,
liability and .... and some of the concerns we have with doing that, that's fine, but .... until
McCollister's built, there's.... there's not a whole lot that we can do. So, I'm just nervous
that we might be creating some false hope for residents with engaging them saying, let's
.....let's figure this out, because the solution is to get McCollister through there. Um,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 39
we're happy to do it. We can paint stripes down the road. We can try to narrow the road
visually through stripes. We can put in stop signs. We can do a number of things,
but .... I think until you get McCollister through you're not gonna.....achieve the results
that you really want to.
Mims/ When I look at the data, um.....and.....the speed numbers and how that has gone down
from 2015 to 2017, um, and .... and I agree with what you're saying, Pauline, I mean you
know .... and I don't know how fast the 15% are going, you know, that are, you know, in
that .... above that 85`h percentile, but .... those are pretty darn reasonable numbers, when
you're getting your 85th percentile is either below the speed limit or just one -mile -an -hour
above the speed limit, it .... the .... vast bulk of your traffic is .... has slowed down. Um,
and the fact with the parking, you know, that helps. The speed bumps help. I'm just
really concerned if we start.....we have a traffic calming program. And if we start, uh,
deviating from that and.... and..... and/or putting in stop signs where they're not
warranted, based on the data, I guess I would ask you, Geoff. If we start putting in traffic
control measures that are not warranted by the data, what is the City's liability?
Fruin/ Sue's office would have to defend any claims on .... on that, uh, I .... I don't know, because
I've never ... I....I.....
Mims/ I don't think it's a path we want to start down. I really don't (both talking) not just from
the liability standpoint, but I think ... just from .... the demand that you potentially start
getting from other neighborhoods, urn ...... from their .... their perception, and everybody's
perception is different in terms of what makes, you know, a safe or comfortable, um,
neighborhood in terms of the traffic or ... or pedestrians or .... or bicyclists. Um....
Thomas/ I do think.... this.... this is one of the issues that the conversation.....would.... would
hopefully give us some..... enlighten us with respect to what is a safe speed? You know,
and this is why I had raised and .... you know, it didn't make it into the strategic plan,
but .... for residents, residents typically ...... view, you know, the spe.... speed in their
neighborhood to be safe when it's hovering more around 20 -miles -per -hour than 25.
So ..... so right there there's a .... a 5 -mile -per -hour difference in terms of the perception of
safety between the driver and the resident. And then as we've mentioned, the 85'
percentile speed means there are 15 vehicles out of a hundred that are driving faster than
that speed. We don't know what that range is. Let .... let's say a driver is going 40, 30 to
40 -miles -per -hour through an intersection along Langenberg. And a child tries to cross
the street or a vehicle tries to pull out into, uh, Langenberg. You know, that .... that could
result in a collision. So without knowing what those .... that, you know, the .... the 95'h
percentile speed in other words. You know, there... there, roughly one out of seven cars
going faster than the speed we know to be 26 or 27 -miles -per -hour or less. Uh.... so....
again, the .... the other thought I had on this was ..... this should be a temporary issue. I
....I'm expecting that once traffic .... McCopin goes in and traffic goes down to what we
expect it to be, the concerns in the neighborhood will be significantly diminished (noise
on mic, unable to hear speaker) they have now. So in terms of what this means in the....
in a global picture, I think we .... we have a way of framing it to say this is a .... this is a
unique situation. We have a.....a local street in a residential neighborhood which is
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 40
seeing three to four times the level of traffic it would normally expect to see. So it's
already differentiated from whatever standards and approach we would take in a more
normal situation.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, I ... I continue to think we should follow the staff s recommendation, but I
think you're right about that point, I mean, we .... we should acknowledge it is a unique
situation, and so maybe that demands a unique response, but right at the moment we have
two people, uh, supporting the staffs recommendation and three, I think, opposing it.
Mazahir, do you have an opinion?
Salih/ I really agree with John. We need to sit down (unable to understand) residents opinions
and find out exactly what they are worried from and because like the officers to sit there
and take down the speed limit, just by the .... if I saw the officer I would slow down
(unable to understand) because he's there (laughs) you know, even if, um, like really
going with the speed limit because as soon as I see him I will look at my speed and
everything to make sure I'm doing the right thing. Just let us ... yeah, that's the nature.
And I guess we need to consider the residents on this decision here (both talking)
Information Packet Discussion !February 22, March 11:
Throgmorton/ ...think I'm hearing four people in favor of having further consultation with the
neighbors. Okay! Move on ... to February 22°d, that packet. Uh, with regard to IP #2,
affordable housing shortage expected to worsen under new tax law. I wanna just say
really pretty irritated me to read that the White House's budget, in its own words,
"Devolves responsibility to state and local governments, which are better positioned to
assess local community needs and address unique market challenges." I think local
governments are better positioned, but .... the federal government has a whole bunch of
money, and it has .... it raises taxes, and their words, in my judgment, are yet another
instance of dissembling. I really wish some people would tell the truth about what
they're doin'. Any.....sorry, getting on a rant here. Shouldn't do that! So, anybody else
have any, uh, anything to say about that, um, information packet?
Mims/ Just would concur with your comments on IP2. Uh, just would encourage people to look
at IP3, the I-80 planning study. Um, people can go to www.iowadot.gov/interstatestudy.
Again, that's www.iowadot.gov/interstatestudy. Look at what they're doing and .... and
their study and their public meetings on changes to interstate 80. I think this .... I think
it's really important as we look at, um, more restrictive budgets, um, as time goes on and
as the DOT looks at adding lanes and doing other things to some of our interstates within
the state, um, how we're gonna pay for those and where that money's coming from and
how we're gonna maintain those, um, I think is really important. I've mentioned this
before. I think spending $350, $400 million to redo the I-80/380 interchange is
absolutely ridiculous. Um, reduce the speeds. Um ..... Cleveland does it for 90 -degree
turns in their Interstate 80 going through the city. So, I think .... as a general public, I
think we have to start paying more attention to what the Iowa .... Iowa DOT is doing and
planning.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 41
Throgmorton/ Great! Uh, can we move on to March the .... sorry, the March 1 packet. IPS,
pending work session topics. Uh, Geoff and I haven't had a chance to talk about this. I
don't know if we specified anything for our next meeting yet, have we? That you know
of, Geoff?
Fruin/ Uh, no we have not.
Throgmorton/ Yeah, so one thing we need to do is review the list of possible work session topics,
cause we have a mighty long list and really....we can't really deal with that. We have to
shorten it. So .... maybe we could do that at our next meeting?
Fruin/ Sure.
Throgmorton/ You're okay with that? (several responding) Also, I would really like to reach
out to the Graduate and Professional Students Association or group, uh, to re .... to discuss
their proposal about having a student liaison. Uh, we've deferred that now for several
months. I'd like to take care of that and .... before the school year ends and they ... go
where they need to go. So....
Fruin/ Would you like us to invite them to (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Yeah, ple.... if we can do that (both talking) I think that'd be great! Y'all (several
talking) .....apparently everybody's okay with that. All right.
Thomas/ One thing on the work session topics, um, it was .... it was kind of triggered by our
discussion of Foster Road, and you know, Geoff mentioned .... uh, not at this meeting but
our .... at our last meeting what the road profile for that design would be, and wh... what
....what it caused me to think about was.....uh, you know, and you know the question
was sort of put to us and I thought, well .... another group that I .... I'd be very interested
knowing what their take is on the proposed road design would be the bicycle....
community. And that caused me to think about.... the bike master plan, and so 1 was
looking at the bike master plan and in that plan it....it did talk about, uh, policies and
regulations related to .... to the plan itself. And .... and one thing that was brought up was,
uh, you know, under their recommendations was the creation of a standing bicycle
advisory committee.
Throgmorton/ All right.
Thomas/ So .... that .... that kind of struck me as, yeah (laughs) that would, you know, again, um...
you know, asking the user of the facility what .... what their thoughts are in terms of
proposed roadway sections, um, that seemed to be a reasonable idea. Um....
Cole/ Doesn't .... we sort of already do that informally, don't we, I mean there are, I think,
bicycle advocates that consult with staff, don't we already sort of do that, Geoff?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 42
Fruin/ I .... either we are in the process of creating that committee or it's already been established.
We had an informal group of people, yes, over the last couple years that have been
meeting. Um, I don't know that the intent was to necessarily run road designs by them,
um, but was more to keep, uh, keep them informed of the progress we're makin' towards
the master plan and let them, uh, inject new priorities that may come up or .... or give us
some advice on some trouble areas in the community. Um, but I'd have to check with...
with Kent, um, whether that group's established.
Thomas/ (both talking) I mean I talked with a few people and .... and to their knowledge....
that ... that committee had not been formed or created, and the other.... the other thing that
was in the plan was something that I had raised and that is, um.....you know, the
NACTO, uh, recommendation, you know the... their.... their guidelines for, um, bicycle
connectivity in urban areas, uh, their .... their recommendations were recommended in the
master plan as something that the City should consider adopting. Um....
Mims/ So in other words this'd be something that we need to talk about, that item
number.... five, in terms of where we want to schedule it, I mean .... or give staff more
direction or whatever. I mean I'm just looking at all the things on here, not trying to get
into the detailed discussion of the items tonight (both talking)
Thomas/ No, no, I just wanted to .... that these were, a couple of items, you know, the, um, just
....to inquire about the status on the committee and then, uh, you know, if we were to
adopt..... a, uh, NACTO, I would think that would go through a work session process.
I....
Fruin/ Yeah, urn .... Ron, you have any thoughts on that? On those standards and .... I know
you're looking through SUDAS now.
Knoche/ The ... the SUDAS standards, um, or design guideline which calls out NACTO as one of
the guides to look to, uh, for .... for design of trails and .... and bicycle facilities.
Thomas/ SUDAS standards?
Knoche/ Yeah, so it's .... it's already identified as a reference within the standards themselves.
Just as .... just as, you know, the AASHTO Green Book for roadway design, you know,
there's..... there's other pieces of reference documents that are included in the design
guides, uh, for those, um, for that piece of it. So NACTO's already called out as one of
those reference documents.
Thomas/ Oh, in the SUDAS (both talking)
Knoche/ In the SUDAS standards, correct.
Thomas/ Ah ha! Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 43
Fruin/ Uh, I would say, um, for .... for number five, it's probably important to have that
conversation sooner rather than later. Uh, we'll be gettin' into McCollister design this
year (both talking) American Legion we've already done some functional design for,
so .... that's probably one as you look at this long list that we should schedule pretty soon.
Throgmorton/ Yep. Okie dokie.
Fruin/ Maybe we'll put that on the, not your next meeting but the one after.
Throgmorton/ Do any of you have other items on the March 1 .... info packet?
Cole/ IP 13, with the, uh, Gloria Dei Lutheran Church and the historic structure. Um, I did read
the memo, um.....they've just sort of left it open in terms of Friends of Affordable Hou...
Friends of Affordable Housing (laughs) .....of Historic Preservation (laughs) Must be
late! Um, we're gonna move the structure or can we have a little bit more detail, Geoff,
in terns of sort of where we are at this point?
Fruin/ Yeah, so what the (both talking) yeah, the church is, um .... uh, basically withdrawn their
proposal to move the .... the home to the Jefferson Courtyard, and they have instead
pledged to work with anybody (both talking) interested in preserving the structure to
move it. So they would, um, help pay for the move, as would the University. That's part
of the purchase agreement there. Um, it's really up to the community, City included, to
find a suitable location, uh, for that home. So as a ... at a staff level, we have already been
discussing some potential, um, locations for it, uh, for the .... for the building, and uh,
we'll sit down with, uh, representative of the Historic Preservation Commission and
Friends of Historic Preservation to get their thoughts too, but I think it's really going to
be on us. We're gonna have to be a part of the solution to save the building.
Cole/ Okay.
Throgmorton/ I should also tell all of you that I wrote a letter to Gloria Dei to ... to Pastor Dykstra
and ... and, uh, forgot.... forgotten the other.... Jane.... can't remember her last name, uh, I
wrote it and just sent it yesterday, acknowledging receipt of what they sent
and .... thanking them in a variety of ways, uh, I didn't bring a copy of it with me, but uh,
you know, just wanted you to know that I responded. Other items in this agenda
packet..... or information packet? I have three or four to mention. So IP #5, responding
to black parents.
Cole/ (mumbled)
Throgmorton/ Huh? (several talking) Is it 6? Oh I'm sorry, thank you! Um, so as .... as the
memo that Pauline and I wrote indicates, she and I met with eight black parents on
February the 12a' and .... there's an attachment to that memo that Ashley put together for
us that details what we heard that night from the parents. I found it to be quite a
stimulating conversation and ... so then the memo tries to distill what we heard down to a
few key points. Uh, it doesn't say we should do .... Pauline and I were not saying in that
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 44
memo we should do one, two, three or .... you know, certain items but .... we did identify
what we took to be four key.... suggestions that we heard from the parents. So .... the
question for us basically is, us being the Council, is: should we put this on our list of
work session topics or is there interest in moving forward on the parent's suggestions
more quickly? Or what? And maybe you'll want to add something to this.
Taylor/ Some of the suggestions, and here we've had this lengthy discussion for months now of
the budget, and that had some items that perhaps would involve some budgetary items,
uh, securing a building, um, hiring someone, counselors or youth service worker kinds of
folks. So I don't know where we would go with that or how we would add those kinds of
items in .... into our budget yet, uh, cause there were some very good suggestions
and .... and,uh, the idea about .... and how .... how we can maybe recruit, uh, the Boys and
Girls Clubs. I've always thought that that would be a good idea, that .... or we have some
sort of YMCA or ... or YWCA here. Uh, but how we would go about, uh, drawing them to
the community here, if. ... (several talking)
Mims/ Well, I've been to Cedar Rapids and met with the Boys and Girls Club up there and they
would love to come to Iowa City.
Taylor/ I think it'd be great! We could pursue that (both talking)
Throgmorton/ Geoff and I have had, uh, well and Pauline, we had some conversation about this
last week. Uh, and it seems .... there are some things we can do, but I don't know that we
can respond to all the key elements that they identified without actually incorporating it
into a budget or, you know, certainly thinking through it more. So .... I can say let's put it
on our list of pending work session topics.
Cole/ I think we should. I mean I know we're trying to sort of cut .... cut it down, but ... but I mean
I think in terms of. ... being responsive, working with them, these are some common sense
solutions .... we .... we gotta find room for it. So ..... put it on the list.
Taylor/ And they were so enthusiastic and so thankful and thoughtful (both talking)
Throgmorton/ They were great (both talking) and really very, very helpful. Okay.
Thomas/ (both talking) I know that I, I mean this came up at the town hall at....at Grant Wood.
This... comment of there's not a lot for the kids to do, um .... (several talking) you know,
our Recreation staff perhaps .... you know, what ... what would be their response to that
question or that .... that comment of, um, not having a lot to do. I mean it .... that .... that's
one that really sticks (both talking)
Throgmorton/ I think what I heard from the parents was there's not really a lot to do, other than
to go to Mercer or the Lee Recreation Center, or just be out on the streets when the
weather's nice. But there's no place to go and .... and just be, and .... and the other two
places, Mercer and, uh, the Lee Center, what I heard them say was they're.... they're too
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 45
controlled. Yeah. You know, there's not .... there's not, no....no place to go to just kind
of be as .... with some supervision, you know, but be.
Taylor/ Yeah, I think it was like, uh, they .... they termed it restrictive and they said, you know,
the kids need, uh, a place to .... to socialize. If they go and they hang out downtown, then,
uh, they get questioned by ... what are you doing here, you know, vagrant kind of thing,
hanging out in the streets, are you up to something, or hanging out — they can't really
hang out at the Ree Center, so to speak, or Mercer Park, so they wanted a place where
they could go to socialize, um, and have like a .... a dance or listen to music or do their
homework, have.... and.... and on that, on those lines, have someone there that could help
them with their homework kinds of thing, get that done, uh....
Mims/ In the discussion, and I think we need to do this work session but just real quickly. In
their discussion, did you sense that they were addressing a certain age group?
Throgmorton/ I think the answer's teenagers (noises on mic, difficult to hear speakers)
Taylor/ (both talking) 14 to 18 kind of age range I think (mumbled)
Throgmorton/ All right, let's put on the work session. Uh, we don't need to talk about it more
tonight, but....
Salih/ (mumbled) IP8.
Throgmorton/ Which one? IP8?
Taylor/ IP8, yes.
Throgmorton/ The Federal Aid Swap, is that what it is? Yeah.
Salih/ (mumbled)
Throgmorton/ Well what I read the, uh, Bill Gerhard's note or whatever that he sent us I thought,
well that's all pertaining to a law that was being considered when he wrote it, and
therefore is irrelevant.... to the question at hand for us. (noises on mic, unable to hear
speaker)
Cole/ How so? I .... I didn't get that at all, Jim. Why .... why do you think (both talking)
Throgmorton/ So maybe I misunderstood it, but he was .... so I understood that he was directing
the question, or making the points with regard to a law. So .... then one of the points
was .... the law would undermine.... the law would undermine rural construction workers'
wages, who construct secondary roads and bridges. I don't see how that would be
affected by what we do in ... in our, what the MPO would do with regard to the swap.
Maybe it does, but I don't see it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 46
Cole/ What I got from him is that he felt.... several different things. I think he met with all of us,
at least I .... (mumbled) guys met with him yet? (both talking) ....wage scales that he had
there, and I think he was of the opinion that even here, without the, um, Davis Bacon, that
you couldn't necessarily expect those level of wage scales. And he also talked about the
extra staffing. Um, some of those staffing are federal regulators to ensure that you're not
misclassifying the different types of people that are subject to that wage scale. Um, and
he, you know, he did have concerns about the impact that this would have. I think in
terms of lowering the minimum wage for highway construction workers. Um, so I'd
encourage them .... you know, for our March 28`h meeting, I'm anticipating a healthy
turnout there. I mean he's .... he's read the .... the staff memo. Um, we're also .... I also
encouraged him to get feedback from his, you know, the lawyer that had come before, so
he can sort of make a direct response to that, um, but he was just as passionate now as he
was six months ago. I mean it's essentially we're .... the minimum wage for the
construction industry, and so, um, he was still very passionate about it, and I think in
terms of the rural issue, that's an issue. Um.....but I.....but I think that there are rural
people in terms of the MPOJC (mumbled) We do have rural areas, correct, or not?
Mims/ No, not with what we are. Ours is the urbanized.
Cole/ Yeah well ... I mean he felt it would depress where we're at here, is my .... is my impression.
Mims/ Yeah, and that's.... that's basically what he conveyed to me too, because I started my
conversation with him and saying, you know, I see myself sitting here as an Iowa City
City Councilor needing to represent Iowa City and .... and his whole memo was focused
on the impact that he saw this having in the rural areas. Well, if they decide to do the
swap, we have no control over that. So if the MPOJC's or .... ECCOG type, you know,
across the state decide to do the swap, then we don't control that. They can do the swap
and they'll end up being able to get rid of their federal money and take state money and
not be under Davis Bacon. And so then he did, he went on and talked the same thing you
said, Rockne, about he really feels that it could potentially, you know, affect the
construction wages that are paid here, the lack of, urn .... certified payrolls, etc., that (both
talking)
Cole/ More out of state (both talking)
Mims/ Yeah, that you .... that you have to have under the Davis Bacon, etc., so, um .... I'm .... I
told him I would support his position. I'm concerned about it. I think the idea if
we .... I'm not as convinced as he is necessarily that it would lower wages here. I think
with the demand, but .... um, I told him I would support his position on (mumbled) on this
point. So.....
Taylor/ I think we needed to have a health discussion since it is going to come before the MPO
again real soon. So we as a group need to understand going into it how we might, uh,
influence the rest of the group to make a decision on this, cause (mumbled) decided by
(both talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 47
Mims/ ...at our next meeting (both talking)
Taylor/ ....so,uh, we need to, and I have some concerns, same concerns. I also talked to Bell and
about the wages and, uh.... um, bypassing some sort of federal regulations, urn .... to make
the job cheaper, which I don't think that's a very good thing.
Salih/ Yeah, LA agree. I agree with you, yeah, and um .... I think, yeah .... it just, the result at the
end will be a really better project if we give like a wages and include environmental, all
the like (unable to understand) have it because it would result in better project. And I
think .... that (mumbled)
Mims/ I think we .... I think with the regulations I'm not as concerned about those because I think
Iowa City has pretty stringent regulations on a lot, like the environmental stuff and those
....and those sorts of things, but um....
Salih/ But this not only affecting (both talking)
Mims/ No. No, well .... no, but the MPOJC is only affecting the urbanized, Coralville, North
Liberty, Iowa City. It's just the urbanized area in terms of the federal dollars that we
would get.
Salih/ Uh huh.
Mims/ And potentially swap out.
Salih/ Sure.
Fruin/ You'll have a DOT representative at the, um .... MPO meeting on the 28`s to answer some
questions, if you have questions on how it would work and what the response has been in
other MPOs throughout the state.
Throgmorton/ Okay! Any other items on the March 1 s` info packet?
Mims/ I did not read .... all the pages of House Study Bill 138 (laughter and several talking) You
read the whole thing? (laughs)
Taylor/ I skimmed it! (laughs) (several talking)
Throgmorton/ ...tell everybody, you do your homework!
Mims/ Well, I knew why it was there, and I skimmed and then I found the barber stuff and I'm
like, Kingsley, why did you put this 20 -page House Study bill in our packet? I wish he
was here tonight. I'd give him a hard time! (laughter)
Council updates on assigned boards, commissions and committees:
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 48
Throgmorton/ Yeah! Okay, I think we're done with the March I" packet. Is that correct? Okay,
Council updates on assigned boards and commissions and committees. We can start with
Rockne and move to his left, which would mean you would be next, Mazahir.
Cole/ Well this is the, um, Transportation Council meeting, um, I wanted to bring up, you know,
we've been getting a lot of notices from the Iowa Department of Transportation relating
the expansion of 380, you know, we've brought up that, to six lanes. We've discussed
that in the past, and I think the .... sort of the consensus of Council is that, you know, hey
doesn't take a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing on this. I think the
DOT wants to do it. That's the direction they want to do it. They want to go, um, you
know, what impact are we gonna have, if any, on .... on that, um, decision that they likely
will make and spent, you know, tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers', uh, to support
that, um, but I did reach out to, um, Jim, um, because I think that we should note, or
consider, whether it's through a letter, by Jim our Mayor, or through a resolution, that we
do .... that we do oppose it. I .... I am categorically opposed to this, and I don't think it's
an esoteric issue. I think it's a major issue because if we're talking about transportation,
we're talking about reducing greenhouse ga.... gases, we're talking about reducing sprawl
and land use and the environment, um, that comes down to a sensible, balanced approach
to transportation policy, and I think that with this decision, it's just getting in. It's when
you're putting on weight to buy bigger pants. That's not what you do. I think it's gonna
be very hard when we're talking about the transportation study for the.....for the railroad,
um, you know, we're makin' it that much easier to use the automobile, and I think what
that will do is that will encourage additional, um .... uh, additional development and put
even greater pressure on that. So, I would like us to either consider a resolution, or have
our Mayor lodge a formal .... if we .... if we have Council support, lodge a formal objection
to it and say we .... we are opposed to it, because I think this is terrible policy. We're just
giving in, um, to a totally carbon -centric automobile transportation network, and I think it
just .... it .... it's not good policy. Um, so I think we should lodge that, and so I don't know
if the Council, need a separate work session. I think right now it just maybe a letter. I
think Jim knows what the issues are, and they may get the letter and say so what, we're
gonna do it anyway, but I think certain issues you sort of have to take a stand, you have
to articulate what your values are, and .... um, they've solicited input! And so this is part
of that process of giving them input.
Throgmorton/ So, clarifying question here. Are you talkin' about I-80 or I-380?
Cole/ I-380. Um, we got the I-80 (both talking) Um, yeah, and I think the same thing could be
said for I-80 as well, but um, I think it was about a week or two we got the notice from,
um, Department of Transportation, at least my recollection (mumbled) confusing it with
I-80, um.....but I do think that we should respond as a Council to that and articulate
clearly what our position is on that. Um, either through a letter or through a resolution,
rather than just sort of saying they're gonna do it one way or another.
Throgmorton /So before we talk about this more, I wanna toss a fact into the mix, which I have
shared with Rockne, and that is .... I wanna remind you that John.... Geoff and I met with
Senator Joe Bolkcom and three DOT officials back on January the 26, and in that meeting
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 49
we learned of at least three very promising actions that the DOT will be rolling out. One
has to do with stronger support for van .... van pooling and car pooling. Second has to do
with express bus transit, which is gonna start in the fall, if I remember rightly. Geoff...
that's the idea anyhow. And the third is much stronger promotion and marketing of both
of those alternatives. So .... John, tell me if I'm wrong here, but uh, I .... we ... I thought we
sensed that that was really promising to hear that they're doing those things, but they also
intend to widen the road. So, I just wanted to make sure y'all were aware of that meeting
and the basic fa.....information we obtained from them at that meeting. So, do y'all have
thoughts about Rockne's suggestion?
Mims/ I don't have a problem with our sending a letter. I think you're... probably right, Rockne.
I think the decision's pretty well done with 380, but you know, and again, they're taking
land on the outside so they can put the fourth lane on the inside later on, so they get the
land before somebody's developed it or built on it. They've absolutely said that, de facto
(mumbled) people asked why aren't you putting that third lane on the inside? Take up
the median, and they said, well, because if we do that, by the time we get ready to do the
fourth lane, people will have developed right up to the borders and they won't have room.
Um .... and .... I .... I guess I would say if we do it in the form of a letter, I think one of the
things that really needs to be emphasized is .... is the financial aspect of this long-term.
Some people are .... don't care about, don't believe in the whole carbon issue. I mean I'm
not saying you don't mention it, but I think more people relate to the financial aspect of
what this is costing us. Um, and .... and, you know, the fact that the easier it is to use the
car, the less .... as we've all talked about here before, the less congestion there is, then the
easier it is for people to hop in their car and go. There's not the incentive, uh, for people
to use ..... you know, the (mumbled) or express buses or anything else, but I .... where
we're headed is just not, I mean this is what I ran on this past time is sustainability,
including financial sustainability, and just adding lanes and adding lanes and having to
plow them and repave them, is not financially sustainable. It's just draining such a huge
part of our .... our financial, uh, resources.
Thomas/ Yeah I .... as Jim said, we .... we met with, uh, DOT staff and .... and I did prepare, uh, a
response, sort of you know, they were asking for comments and .... and the three .... the
three themes that I .... that I, um, addressed in my .... my concerns were environmental,
economic, and safety. Uh, so it's .... I think it is important to .... to explain, you know,
what it is we're proposing, you know, and why, and .... and uh.... it is very interesting that,
you know, this is .... one .... one of the clear ways in which this can be addressed, if...if
we're .... we're not saying there isn't congestion or future congestion. I think in my view
the issue is how do we address that congestion (laughs) in a way in which we optimize
the use of the interstates, and in my view, and in many others' view, the .... the use of the
interstates has not been optimized because it's a free good! There is simply, you know,
unlike when you.....book a flight (laughs) Right! When you book a flight on an
airplane, you know if you go at peak season you're gonna pay a premium. You know,
the same thing could be applied to the interstates. If.....if you know that you get on the
interstates during commute hours, you're gonna have to pay a premium. And .... and so
there are ways in which you can distribute the use of the interstates to ... to better
maximize the use, before you make the decision to widen it. So .... so it isn't, in my view
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 50
it's .... that's the best way to frame it, is that we're just simply not optimizing use of what
we have, uh, in that any future expansion should be based on optimization, uh, before we
lead to providing more capacity.
Throgmorton/ So, am I right in understanding that this is, this topic is, comes before the MPO
Board at its next meeting? Is that right?
Mims/ Swap does. I don't (several talking)
Throgmorton/ Swap does, but not this? Or has it already been discussed and the MPO (several
talking)
Cole/ I don't think there's a decision.
Mims/ No (several talking)
Throgmorton/ All right, so what I'm thinking is, uh.....you could authorize me to write a letter to
the MPO Board. Is that the .... I mean I gotta be clear about who to write to.
Cole/ I was thinking the Department of Transportation. Iowa Department of Transportation
(mumbled)
Fruin/ I'm not sure. I .... I just don't recall if their.... formal public comment period is still open
or where that stands. I mean doesn't.... even if it's not open it doesn't preclude you from
writing a letter. Urn .... but we can .... we can figure that out, if there's a public hearing
opportunity or .... or if you just warm write a letter. I .... I would, as a courtesy to your
neighbors who may share your views or may not share your views, I .... I would let them
know what your stance is, uh, so that they're not surprised or hearing about it from
different sources (both talking)
Throgmorton/ So .... copy of the letter to the MPO Board (both talking)
Fruin/ ....minimum, yeah.
Mims/ Well and I think Geoff is saying maybe .... maybe even talk to the mayors ahead of time,
before you send it or .... possibly.
Fruin/ And you may wanna.... engage in that discussion out of the MPO and see if they'd support
ya. You know, that's gonna be a more powerful advocacy piece if it's supported by the
MPO, uh, multiple cities instead of one. I don't think you'll get there, cause I don't know
that the other councils would share your view, but ... urn .... I think it .... I think it would be
appropriate to have that discussion at a regional level too, so that everybody knows where
you stand and.... again they may join ya, they may not.
Throgmorton/ All right. So I'm thinking I would write a letter to the DOT .... uh, with
connections to the other people you just described, expressing our objections to the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 51
proposed widening of I-380, praising the DOT's three forthcoming actions, and call for
more thoughtful integration of transportation and land use planning at the regional scale.
Cole/ Yep!
Throgmorton/ All right! I might need some help from the staff on this, Geoff.
Fruin/ Sure!
Throgmorton/ Any other, no we have to.....you started us on this, didn't ya? (laughs)
Cole/ My fault!
Throgmorton/ John, is there anything, uh....
Thomas/ (both talking) no updates.
Throgmorton/ Susan?
Mims/ Um, the Steering Committee for the, uh, Access Center is still meeting. Um, I think we
continue to make progress, looking at, um, potentially hiring a project manager who
would kind of take over some of the day-to-day, nitty gritty in terms of, I mean.....I've
learned so much on this. I mean there's certain, ran ..... licensure issues depending upon
the services they're gonna be provided and how that impacts reimbursement from
Medicaid and, I mean, just all different kinds of things. So, somebody who understands
more of that and can kind of pull some of those pieces together. So having that
discussion, um, lots of, you know, conversations between the various organizations still
and trying to get some things, you know, to some next steps. So, not a whole lot to report
other than I .... I feel optimistic that we're continuing to make progress, but .... um,
hopefully more to come soon.
Cole/ Is North Liberty gonna be contributing?
Mims/ I do not believe that they have, um .... budgeted anything in their 2019 budget .... for the
capital costs. So that was a discussion at our last meeting. We hope to get them on -board
for the future.
Cole/ Okay. I was gonna say are we going to request a joint meeting with them?
Mims/ No, but we do hope to get them on -board for the future.
Cole/ Okay.
Throgmorton/ Okie dokie. Pauline?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.
Page 52
Taylor/ Uh, had my first meeting with the ECICOG, the East Central Iowa Council of
Governments, on Thursday the 22"d of February. Uh, mostly we spent a lot of time just
going around the room with introductions cause a lot of folks were new to the group. Uh,
we had a brief discup.... discussion on the federal, uh, swap program, um, seemed like the
folks in the room didn't have a lot of information on it. There were a lot of questions and
not a lot of answers. Uh, we did have then most of the meeting was a presentation by
Antonio Arenas, uh, from the Iowa Flood Center here at the University of Iowa. He gave
a Power Point on data and information regarding flooding and watershed projects, and it
was really very interesting. If our, uh.... uh, work session agendas weren't so packed full
(laughs) I would think it'd be a really great, uh, Power Point for us to .... to visit, cause
it .... Johnson County, uh, had benefit from a lot of the federal aid money, uh, both from
the 93 flood and .... and 08, so, uh, very interesting.
Throgmorton/ Maz?
Salih/ I was really looking forward to ... for my first meeting with the SEATS or the Transit, but
unfortunately I marked it on my calendar (unable to understand) on the 27 (unable to
understand) same time as the meeting. (unable to understand) asked for the minutes.
Maybe when I get the minutes I can update you.
Throgmorton/ Good deal! All right, I have nothing to report about the CVB or the Partnership
for Alcohol Safety, but I want to make one last comment before we end. We adopted a
budget tonight, with the CIP. We defined the final elements of our strategic plan tonight.
And we gave the staff guidance about the annexation policy. This is good work.
Congratulations to everybody! I think we're done with our work session. Great, thank
you! (several talking)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of March 6, 2018.